Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ALIENS (NATURALISATION)

Address for
Return showing (1) Particulars of all aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1941, been registered at the Home Office; (2) information as to any aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature; and (3) particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked during the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 66 of Session 1941–42)."—[Mr. Peake.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Mining Machinery

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent orders for modern machinery to replace obsolete plant in coal pits are being licensed?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The supply of modern mining machinery to replace obsolete plant is at present governed by the availability of new equipment. Subject to this, licences are being issued by my Ministry to enable all such demands to be met, and it is hoped that the position will gradually improve.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Can the Minister say what priority this machinery and its replacements are getting?

Major Lloyd George: A very high priority, and I think there will be a very great improvement in about three months' time.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the machines which have been installed at various collieries belong to the colliery companies, or will the State, which has been responsible for putting them in, still have some control over them, after the war?

Major Lloyd George: In some cases, where they are financially able to do so, colliery companies will purchase the machinery themselves. In other cases they will be assisted. The State will be adequately remunerated and safeguarded at the end of the war.

Electricity Meters, London

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether he is aware that, by the direction or with the approval of the Ministry, users of electricity in London are being required to instal separate meters for lighting, heating and cooking at considerable cost and with no object, seeing that a rationing scheme is not to be introduced; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that some consumers of electricity in London have insisted on changing over from a two-part tariff and that, as a result, separate meters and separate wiring have become necessary in some cases. In present circumstances, it is clearly contrary to the national interest that materials and labour should be used for this work of separate wiring and installing separate meters. Accordingly, the Electricity Commissioners are urging upon the undertakings the necessity of offering consumers a suitable alternative form of tariff which would obviate the necessity for separating the wiring and installing additional meters. If my hon. Friend knows of any case where an electricity undertaking is still pressing upon consumers a tariff which will involve separate wiring and installation of separate meters, I shall be very glad to ask the Electricity Commissioners to investigate the case.

Sir W. Davison: Are these alterations due to the recent Order of the Ministry forbidding electricity undertakings in future to charge the minimum quarterly charge authorised by their Acts or Orders in the case of any saving of current below the minimum charge?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Coalmines, Lancashire

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether he has considered the suggestion of the Controller for Lancashire of closing some pits


in order to concentrate production in others; and what decision has been reached?

Major Lloyd George: In accordance with the policy laid down in the White Paper, the Fuel and Power Controller in the North-West Region is preparing schemes for concentration and, in one particular case, a colliery is shortly to be closed.

Mr. Davies: When collieries like this are being closed, will they still be kept under repair so that they may be reopened if necessity arises?

Major Lloyd George: I think that is so.

Regional Coal Boards (Technicians)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is satisfied that expert technicians and mining engineers are sufficiently represented on the Regional Coal Boards; whether the original proposal that their representation would be approximately equal to that of the employees and employers has been carried out; and whether he is satisfied that every effort is now being made to develop and apply the most scientific methods to coal production in this country?

Major Lloyd George: There was no indication in the White Paper on Coal that there should be equality of representation, as suggested in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question. I am, however, satisfied that the technical knowledge represented on the Regional Coal Boards is sufficient for their purpose. My Regional Controllers, who are in operational control of the industry, have adequate technical advice at their disposal, and the answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Clifton Colliery

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what salary the manager of the Clifton Colliery is now being paid; what amount of money has been paid to the debenture and other shareholders; and whether any of the arrears have been paid off?

Major Lloyd George: The manager of the Clifton Colliery is paid a salary of £840 per annum plus £65 per annum for expenses. In addition to the manager there is a general manager, Mr. Dixon,

who is paid £1,500 per annum. The debenture on the undertaking has been redeemed at a total capital cost of £31,132, and in addition interest on the debenture has been paid for the period during which arrears of interest had accumulated, namely 2¼ years at a rate of 4 per cent. per annum. No payment has yet been made to the ordinary shareholders.

Mr. Thorne: Is the manager in question getting better pay now than he was before the colliery was taken over?

Major Lloyd George: I could not answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothes Rationing (Heavy Industries)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the resolution passed by East Wemyss miners at a public meeting on 22nd November, 1942, and sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife; and what steps he is prepared to take to meet their demand for 30 extra clothing coupons instead of 10?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The whole question of further concessions to workers in the heavier industries is at present under discussion with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware of the terrific wear and tear on miners' clothes, and will he not see whether it is possible to make this concession?

Mr. Dalton: I always have taken and I always shall take into consideration to the utmost what we can do for workers, of whom miners are, of course, one very important section, whose daily work entails heavy wear and tear on their clothes. It is for that special reason that the General Council and the trade unions specially concerned are advising me now as to how to meet the situation.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Are not agricultural workers also sufferers from very considerable wear and tear?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, and there are many others.

Mr. Kirkwood: What about ship workers?

Small Traders (Rehabilitation)

Major Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has been reached on the question of granting State credit and/or guarantees for the reopening of business in due course by small shopkeepers who, through absence on service or through economic causes due to the war, have been compelled to shut their establishments?

Mr. Dalton: The question of granting State credit to small shopkeepers after the war is part of the wider problem of post-war financial assistance to many sections of the community, on which no decision can yet be taken. As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) on Tuesday last, I am now compiling a register to facilitate any post-war control of the opening and re-opening of shops that may be found necessary, with fairness to those retailers who have been forced to close during the war.

Major Lyons: Will the Minister again reconsider this important point, because a very large number of small shopkeepers are economically crippled through no fault of their own? The mere inclusion of their names in a register will not restore their businesses. Will he give consideration to the present needs of thousands of these people?

Mr. Dalton: There is no decision calling to be reconsidered. What I have said is that no decision can yet be taken for financial assistance to one particular section of the community after the war.

Mr. Doland: Is not the Minister aware that there is a precedent for shopkeepers' claims being considered, particularly after the last war?

Household Goods (Coupons)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the resolution of the Scottish Co-operative Women's Guild, Section VII, sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife, demanding the issue of household coupons to cover the purchase of essential household linen; and what steps he is prepared to take to meet this demand?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider instituting a book of household coupons for the replacement of household effects to be made up from the clothing coupons of the household affected, each book to hold a maximum of 12 coupons per six-monthly period?

Mr. Dalton: As I have previously explained to the House, the only essential household goods subject to coupon are towels and tea-cloths. In view of the great and increasing stringency of supplies, I regret that I cannot issue extra coupons for these articles. The proposal for special ration books for household goods would not, I am afraid, be administratively practicable, but, apart from this, the additional labour involved in producing and distributing such books could not be justified.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister consider issuing separate coupons for domestic facilities apart from personal coupons, in order to ensure a fair system of rationing of various kinds of goods among different people in the homes?

Mr. Dalton: I have considered this matter very carefully, and I am afraid there are great administrative difficulties to that particular form of procedure. The more helpful way, which I have told the House I am pursuing, is to get an increase in the output of towels, and as that proceeds I hope that we shall get over the difficulties that now confront us.

Sir T. Moore: Will the Minister always bear in mind the very severe strain on housewives in these matters, and will he and his Department not use imagination in trying to solve these problems?

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid that imagination alone will not produce an increased supply. We must produce it by other means.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware of the very high prices now being charged for tablecloths?

Mr. Dalton: That is another question.

United Kingdom Commercial Corporation

Sir A. Southby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the activities of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation and its subsidiaries; and to what


extent this corporation is acting, directly or indirectly, or as agent for His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. This organisation, which was set up by His Majesty's Government in April, 1940, is doing most valuable work in many parts of the world. The Corporation, with its subsidiaries, acts, for the most part, as agent for one Department or another of His Majesty's Government; but it also gives assistance to private traders.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Minister give an assurance that at the termination of hostilities this organisation will cease to exist and to function?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Sir Herbert Williams: Seeing that this organisation was set up in the first place to trade in a part of the world which has now been completely overrun, has it not been necessary to save its face by inventing new jobs for it?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, that is a complete misunderstanding of the position. It is true that, in the earlier stages, this body was of very great help in pre-emptive activities in countries which have since been overrun by the enemy, but many new duties have since developed, and this body is discharging them very effectively.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Ought its present activities properly to be described as commercial?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I think so.

Requisitioned Premises, Hereford

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make inquiries into the circumstances under which action was taken to requisition premises, of the location of which he has been informed, despite the fact that at the time of requisitioning, the premises in question were being used for the repair of motor-vehicles?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. No further inquiries are necessary. I have explained the circumstances of this case in letters to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) in whose constituency the premises in question are situated. Before I issued an authority to acquire these premises, I consulted my noble Friend the Minister of War Transport,

who is responsible for the maintenance of adequate and efficient facilities for the repair of motor vehicles. He agreed that the premises should be made available for other purposes, and they have, therefore, been allocated by my Department to the Ministry of Supply to meet urgent storage requirements.

Sir H. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the terms of the letter addressed by the Regional Transport Commissioner to the owner of the premises in question, and does he think it proper that letters should be written by a Civil servant in such terms of discourtesy?

Mr. Dalton: I have not that letter before me. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to send me a copy, but on the merits of the case I am fully satisfied in the circumstances.

Sir H. Williams: Can the merits of the case be judged by the man who wrote an impertinent letter?

Mr. Dalton: I do not accept that it was impertinent.

North Midland Factory (Appointment)

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade why no opportunity was given for any selection from ex-Service men or others when a recent appointment was made by the North Midland Regional Factory Premises Controller?

Mr. Dalton: The Ministry of Labour, through whom appointments of this kind are made, were notified of the vacancy in question. In view of the urgency of filling the post and the difficulties of recruitment in the Nottingham area, my Department suggested, as a possible candidate, a person resident in Nottingham who had been recommended by the Regional Factory Controller. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) was informed on 17th December, this person applied for the post through the Ministry of Labour, was appointed on probation and is carrying out his duties satisfactorily.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that this man was a lodger in the premises of the Factory Premises Controller, that he arranged the appointment, and that after the appointment was arranged it was registered by the Ministry of Labour?


Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire again into this rather disgraceful case?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think that the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend.

Sir H. Williams: Has not the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to whether they are?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, and a Question on the subject was put to the Minister of Labour, who has already given the hon. Member the assurance that he would look into it as far as he was concerned.

Mr. William Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that even in a somewhat case-hardened Civil Service this particular appointment is regarded as one of the worst cases of nepotism and patronage which has yet occurred, even in his Department, and will he go into this personally and invoke my assistance if necessary?

Mr. Dalton: I am much obliged for the offer, and will consider it if necessary.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept a similar offer on the same terms from me?

Hearing-Aid Batteries

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship imposed on the deaf by the shortage of batteries which are essential parts of hearing appliances; and what steps he is taking to relieve this shortage?

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) on 17th December, a copy of which I am sending him. Supplies of hearing-aid batteries are now reported by the manufacturers as reasonably satisfactory, except for one low tension type, the shortage of which is due to urgent Service requirements. I have impressed on those concerned the importance of increasing production, and I hope that there will be an early improvement.

Post-War Export Trade

Mr. Hogg: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to appoint a committee to develop a policy for the rehabilitation of our industrial markets after the war?

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) on 25th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Hogg: Was not that reply perfectly negative in its character, and is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable anxiety which is felt that the Government are not paying sufficient attention to this important subject?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, the reply states that a Committee such as my hon. and gallant Friend desires to see set up is, in fact, functioning, and was set up in December, 1941.

Cycle Lamp Batteries

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that cycle-lamp batteries are at present unobtainable in the West-Midland district; and whether he can state what steps are being taken to meet essential civilian needs?

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) on Tuesday last. Following recent complaints of shortages, I have arranged with the manufacturers for increased supplies to be sent to many parts of the country, including a number of places in the West Midlands.

Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 8th December he promised substantially increased supplies of these batteries? We are still without them in Birmingham. Are we to get any batteries before the light nights come?

Mr. Dalton: I think that if my hon. Friend will look at the answer I gave last week, he will see that we are pressing the matter very vigorously.

Mr. Higgs: That repeats the reply the Minister gave on 8th December, yet we have not any batteries in our district.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Astor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare, whether further consideration has now been given to the suggestion of dropping small packages of food broadcast on Greek towns?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave him on 1st December, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Astor: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman has given no further consideration to this matter whatever? May I also ask whether he has discussed this proposal with the Greek Government?

Mr. Foot: No, Sir, it does not mean that we have not given the matter further consideration. What I said on the last occasion was that the sugestion would be borne in mind. I was not ruling it out. That implies further consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (DANISH DIESEL ENGINES)

Sir A. Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Economic Warfare, whether he has any information as to the extent to which Germany is obtaining diesel engines from Danish sources?

Mr. Foot: Diesel engines have continued to be manufactured in Denmark since the German occupation in May, 1940, but I am unable to give a precise estimate of the number of engines which have been delivered to Germany.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind, in view of the vital importance of doing something to stop the U-boat campaign, the fact that these engines are going to U-boats, and will he consult with the Minister of Defence so as to discover whether it would not be possible to bomb the factories in Copenhagen which are turning out these engines for Germany?

Mr. Foot: These matters have been and are being very carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

A.T.S. Corporal's Death

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inquest on Corporal Helen Mary MacRae, Auxiliary Territorial Service, whose death was caused or accelerated through a fall from a stretcher, which was being carried by four Army stretcher-bearers, three of

whom were admitted to be inexperienced in their work; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made to find out why at this stage of the war there are inexperienced stretcher-bearers?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have carefully considered the facts connected with the death of Corporal MacRae. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sincere regret. It is, however, clear from the inquest and from the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry which was held that her death was due to the condition she was in when she was removed to hospital and not to her fall from the stretcher, which, according to medical opinion, could not have done more than accelerate her death by a few minutes. Corporal MacRae was taken ill and removed in the middle of the night. She was living in billets. As there were no qualified stretcher-bearers available and in view of the urgency of the case, the medical officer called upon four men from a nearby unit to carry the stretcher. It was unfortunate that Army stretcher-bearers were not available, but it is clearly impossible to have teams of stretcher-bearers on call everywhere for emergencies of this nature. In view of these facts, I trust that my hon. Friend will agree with me that no further inquiry is needed.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that there are in the Auxiliary Territorial Service sufficient trained personnel in field ambulance and field service work to deal with these matters, and that there is no excuse why in any large town there should not be at least two fully trained stretcher bearers for every accident case; and if that is not the case, will he see that that is put right?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of training a sufficient number of stretcher bearers receives constant attention, and in fact training is going on all the time, but I would not like to commit myself to the view that there is a sufficient number at the moment so far as the A.T.S. are concerned.

Exercises, Kent (Agricultural Damage)

Sir William Wayland: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the unnecessary damage to valuable agricultural land caused during


recent Army exercises in south-east Kent, involving the straying of livestock and a set-back to food production; and whether he will immediately issue an instruction to Army commanders-as to the need for enforcing strict orders to ensure the more careful driving of Army vehicles, especially tanks, and particularly the closing of field and other gates to prevent the straying of sheep and cattle?

Mr. A. Henderson: Instructions in writing have been issued to all units which emphasise the necessity of avoiding all possible damage to agricultural interests. Troops must, however, learn to make the best use of land over which they are manoeuvring and in areas used for intensive battle training some damage and dislocation of agricultural life cannot, unfortunately, be avoided if the training is to be realistic and valuable. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any wanton damage which has come to his notice, I will gladly have the points looked into in detail.

Mr. Messer: Have the Army done as much damage as the foxhunters?

Invasion Warning

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War what is to be regarded as the invasion warning in areas where there are either no church bells or where church bells cannot be heard ringing?

Mr. A. Henderson: Where such arrangements are considered necessary it is the responsibility of the local military commander, in consultation with the regional commissioner, to improvise a suitable alternative warning signal.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that in the area from which I come, which is in a dangerous position, you cannot hear church bells, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what kind of signal is given to these people, and, if it is suitable for them, why cannot it be instituted all over the country and the church bells rung for purposes for which they were intended?

Mr. Henderson: As I have indicated, it is for the local military commander to make arrangements with the Regional Commissioner. If my hon. Friend can provide me with details which show that in any particular district no arrangements have been made, I will gladly look into them.

Mr. Stokes: That is not my point. It this signal is suitable in one area, why cannot it be made universal and applicable to every area? It is just stupidity on the part of the War Office.

Mr. Henderson: No one has been able to think of a suitable general alternative to the ringing of church bells.

Sir H. Williams: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me of any area where proper arrangements have been made?

Mr. Henderson: I think I am entitled to ask my hon. Friend whether he will give me particulars of any area where suitable arrangements have not been made.

Sir H. Williams: Yes, the area in which I live.

Pay and Allowances

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War, to what extent the pay and allowances of senior non-commissioned officers and warrant officers exceed those of junior officers after the latter have made provision for necessary expenditure on uniform upkeep, laundry, boot repairs and other items which, in the case of other ranks, is borne by Army funds; and whether he will give the respective figures after making these allowances?

Mr. A. Henderson: My hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of defining precisely the amounts spent by junior officers on the objects named. Such amounts must vary with individual officers and different circumstances. On the other hand, the cash value of the emoluments received in kind by the non-commissioned officer is, as my hon. Friend will recollect, a matter of some controversy. In these circumstances I do not think that the comparison can usefully be made.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not my hon. and learned Friend aware from his own personal experience that there is a considerable discrepancy in the net emoluments between the senior non-commissioned officers and the junior officers, and does not that militate against recruitment of officers from the senior non-commissioned ranks?

Mr. Henderson: I cannot accept the statement that there is a considerable discrepancy, and where there is any discrepancy


it depends upon the value that one may assess in relation to the payments in kind made to non-commissioned officers.

Captain C. S. Taylor: If my hon. and learned Friend finds difficulty in getting the estimate of these figures from all the departments of the War Office, will he come and ask me, because I can give them to him?

Mr. Hogg: Would not the difficulty be avoided by issuing to junior officers the same facilities with regard to boots and laundry as in fact are received by non-commissioned officers and warrant officers?

Officers' Rations

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War why officers are not permitted to draw the same rations as other ranks; and whether the supper element of 2½d. a day can be granted to officers as in the case of other ranks?

Mr. A. Henderson: The cash allowance of 2½d., which is not a supper element, is given to other ranks in money instead of kind with a view to enabling the unit to introduce more variety in the ration. Similar provision is, however, not made for officers whose practice it has always been to contribute towards their messing from their pay.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not that answer indicate that officers are not receiving the same rations either in cash or in kind as the men, and why should that be in wartime?

Mr. Henderson: The explanation is that which is contained in the latter part of my original answer.

Middle East (Air Mail)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether steps will now be taken for the further improvement of the air mail letter service between this country and the Middle East?

Mr. A. Henderson: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend that the air mail letter service between this country and the Middle East should be as good as possible, and the arrangements for the transmission of the mails are constantly under review with a view to improving them.

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider an approach to the Air Ministry to allocate one or more aeroplanes permanently to this service?

Mr. Henderson: An approach has already been made to the Air Ministry with a view to effecting an improvement.

Commissions (University Courses)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there are special short university courses for prospective candidates for commissions in the Army similar to those offered in the Royal Air Force; and, if so, what is the number of officer-cadets already accepted for them?

Mr. A. Henderson: Yes, Sir. About 2,000 have so far been accepted, and it is expected that a further 690 or so will be accepted for the course which starts in April.

Beveridge Report (Bulletin)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War how many copies of the bulletin concerning the Beveridge Report, issued by the "Army Bureau of Current Affairs," were not returned after its withdrawal; and whether copies of it are to be made available for inspection by Members of this House?

Mr. A. Henderson: Complete figures are not yet available. Copies are being placed in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War the latest information with regard to the treatment of military prisoners of war in Hong Kong; whether there has been any improvement in the food supplied; whether they have any medical attendance and, if so, what; whether the International Red Cross, whose representative is allowed to visit civilian prison camps weekly, is still forbidden to visit the camps containing military prisoners of war; and what further action is being taken by the Government in the matter?

Mr. A. Henderson: It is believed that the majority of the prisoners of war have been transferred from Hong Kong, though it is probable that some 2,000 British and Canadian prisoners as well as some Indian prisoners, remain there. The International Red Cross Committee delegates reported favourably on the Hong Kong camps in October, 1942. Later information indicates a deterioration in the


rations and considerable outbreaks of disease during last summer. It is understood that prisoners of war admitted to hospital receive adequate nursing, but medical treatment is hampered by a serious shortage of drugs and other medical requisites. The delegate of the International Red Cross Committee is allowed to visit the camps, but no further reports have been received. Should the International Red Cross Committee report that their delegate is being refused access to the camps, representations will be made to the Japanese Government; but no such communication has been made by the International Committee.

Sir W. Davison: With regard to the prisoners still there, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the B.B.C. have for some time been receiving lists of British prisoners of war given out by the Japanese on short wave lengths every afternoon, and that when inquiries have been made at the Colonial Office they say that they know nothing of this matter, and could not some liaison between the B.B.C. and the Colonial Office be arranged?

Mr. Henderson: I will look into it.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will examine, with the Secretary of State for Air, the possibility of bringing home prisoners of war, on the cessation of hostilities, by transport aircraft rather than by less expeditious means?

Mr. A. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Member that it will be the object of the Government to repatriate our prisoners of war as quickly as practicable after the conclusion of hostilities. It is scarcely possible at present to say what ways and means will be available when that time comes.

Mr. Driberg: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is as necessary not to be caught unprepared by the end of the war in this as in other matters, and that the difference of even a few weeks in getting home will mean a lot to these men after their long and wearisome ordeal?

Mrs. Tate: Will the Minister bear in mind that if they waited to come home by British civil aircraft few of their relatives would live to see them?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAINED PRISONERS OF WAR

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the German Government have hitherto refused to free our prisoners from shackles owing to orders issued by our military authorities involving, in certain cases, the temporary binding of German prisoners on the battlefield; and whether he will consider the cancelling of such orders which, though primarily designed in the interests of the prisoners themselves, might be thought to be insulting to the prisoners and so contrary to Article 2 of the Geneva Convention of 1929?

Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 19th January.

Sir A. Knox: When are we to have a decision about this matter? Would it not be better on balance to give way, in view of the terrible sufferings of our prisoners through all these months?

Mr. Henderson: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend can be satisfied that a statement will be made on this very difficult problem at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this matter being very long drawn out? It is many weeks since we were told that something was to be done. Meanwhile our men are suffering. Cannot the Government make up their mind?

Mr. Henderson: I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are just as anxious to help our men as anyone else but we have no control over the German government.

Sir W. Davison: Can the House not be informed of the nature of the negotiations between the International Red Cross and the Germans?

Sir A. Knox: If members of the Government were shackled themselves for 12 hours daily would it not hasten a decision?

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRING INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the interim report on the Herring Fishing Industry will be in the hands of the Government; and whether it will be published?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): This brief interim report has been received, and I am considering it in consultation with my colleagues. Security and other considerations have to be examined before we can deal with the question of publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — E.N.S.A. PARTY (INCIDENT)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police have taken any action against the man who threw bread at the Entertainments National Service Association party who were going to give an entertainment in the Potteries?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My information is that while the stage was being prepared for an entertainment in the canteen someone threw to a friend sitting at an adjoining table a piece of bread, which rebounded on to the stage. As it does not appear that any question arises either of an assault or of waste of bread, there is no occasion for any action by the police.

Mr. Thorne: I cannot understand that answer at all, because it is perfectly evident that if I threw a piece of bread at the right hon. Gentleman, it would be a waste of bread.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENT, MIDLANDS ORDNANCE FACTORY.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Supply whether he can give any information in connection with a man killed at a Royal Ordnance factory in the Midlands by coming in contact with an electric fence?

Major Sir James Edmondson (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. At the inquest on Mr. Sidney Wilcox, the coroner returned a verdict of "Accidental death, due to shock, following contact with an inadvertently electrically charged fence wire." A Court of Inquiry into the circumstances of the accident is being held to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (WAR COUNCIL)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he has studied the

reports coming from the United States of America regarding the formation of a United Nations War Council; whether, as a result, he has given reconsideration to the many suggestions of this nature made by Members of this House; and what is his decision?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I understand that suggestions of this nature have been canvassed in the United States as in this country. I have nothing, however, to add to previous statements which have been made in this House on the subject.

Sir T. Moore: If I put a Question down in a week's time, may I expect a more definite reply?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I can give any undertaking on that subject. I thought my reply was pretty definite.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will define the functions of those hon. Members who act as Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Ministers; whether, when communications are sent to Ministers, such hon. Members are entitled to reply in their own names, and on their own behalf; and whether he can state the exact relations between Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the respective Government Departments?

Mr. Eden: As regards the general position of Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Ministers and their functions, I think I cannot do better than refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 24th June, 1941, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Shinwell: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently the practice has grown up of Parliamentary Private Secretaries intimating to Members that they are personally dealing with cases sent to Ministers? I myself have received letters from Parliamentary Private Secretaries which indicated that the Minister had not seen my communication at all. The Parliamentary Private Secretary took responsibility for dealing with the case. Will that practice be stopped?

Mr. Eden: I think the general practice of Ministers—although there is no rule in the matter—is that when communications are addressed to them personally they deal with them personally. That is the general practice so far as is possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would not apply, of course, in the same way if Members chose, as they might well choose in these hard-worked times, to communicate direct with a Parliamentary Private Secretary. There could be no objection to that if Members chose so to do. Generally speaking, I think Parliamentary Private Secretaries can be trusted to discharge their duties with energy, skill and patience. At the same time perhaps not too much importance should be attached to the political significance of the work they do.

Mr. Shinwell: While recognising the difficulties experienced by Ministers when a large number of cases is submitted to them and their desire to hand them over to someone so that they can be dealt with more expeditiously, is it proper that when a communication is sent to a Minister the Department not only puts the matter into the hands of a Parliamentary Private Secretary but the Parliamentary Private Secretary takes the responsibility for dealing with the case and intimates so in his letter?

Mr. Eden: I do not think a Parliamentary Private Secretary could take responsibility for dealing with a communication which has been addressed to a Minister. The practice has grown up, and there is a certain amount of latitude in these matters, that Ministers like to reply themselves if they can, but some offices have more voluminous correspondence than others.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently I had a letter from a Parliamentary Private Secretary, that I sent it to the party concerned, and the authorities refused to recognise it as official, so that I had to take the matter up with the Department once again?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I was aware of this. I am not aware of it, and I do not know how I could be expected to be aware of it.

Sir Adam Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter from another aspect? Among certain Departments there is a growing practice that letters

addressed by Members to Ministers are passed on to a Parliamentary Private Secretary, whose reply does not carry the same conviction or satisfaction as would a letter from the Minister.

Mr. Eden: I am sure my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what has been said. As I have said, it was the old practice for Ministers always to attempt to answer themselves letters from Members of Parliament, but it is true that in certain Departments correspondence in war-time is enormous, so that it is scarcely possible to follow that practice now. I think we must allow some latitude.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-NATAL ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS' WIVES)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Lord-President of the Council whether, in deciding to exclude officers' wives from the new ante-natal children's allowances recently granted to the wives of other ranks, His Majesty's Government took into account the present heavy expense of maternity cases and the greatly increased cost of layettes and perambulators?

The Lord-President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The pre-natal allowance was given as a general contribution towards the additional expenses falling on a household in the later months of the wife's pregnancy. These expenses are of various kinds, and vary from case to case, but His Majesty's Government had in mind amongst others those particular items to which the hon. Member refers. The allowance was given to other ranks and ratings in order to meet those cases where the need for special assistance is greatest.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that need, especially among junior officers, is just as great as, and sometimes greater than among other ranks, and why do the Government make this unwise discrimination between two classes of men who are serving their country?

Sir J. Anderson: I recognise the force of the hon. Member's point, but the Government in coming to their decision took account of the representations made to them in favour of making adequate provision for the wives of soldiers who, by reason of their low rate of pay, were


unable to make adequate arrangements for their wives during this difficult period. Those are the exact terms of the representations which were made. Further, there was this practical difficulty. It would have been quite impossible to extend to officers the arrangements made for other ranks, in view of the fact that a high proportion of officers both in the Army and in the Air Force are serving under the old code. It would be rather difficult to make an officer's remuneration dependent upon the size of his family.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION SUBJECTS

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will give a list of the subjects which it has been announced from time to time that his Department is studying?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Address on 1st December, when I reviewed the main problems of reconstruction which are being studied.

Major Petherick: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the question of the reform of local government appears in any such list? Is not this a subject which could be left until after the war, so that the whole question could be examined by a Royal Commission?

Sir W. Jowitt: The reform of local government is not at present being considered in general.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEVERIDGE COMMITTEE (SIGNING OF REPORT)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether the letter, dated 27th January, 1942, from his predecessor to Sir William Beveridge, stating that the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee would be signed by the chairman alone, was written as a result of the extension of the terms of reference announced by his predecessor in the House of Commons on the same date?

Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir. I would add that the answer given by my predecessor on 27th January, 1942, did not, in fact, extend the scope of the Committee's inquiry

but was merely intended to give it publicity so that appropriate evidence might be submitted.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that reference to pages 2 and 18 of the Report clearly indicates that the Committee regarded that announcement as an extension of the terms of reference?

Sir W. Jowitt: I cannot agree. The Committee did not regard it as an extension; they were anxious to have it quite plain that the terms of reference did already extend to this topic so that persons interested might bring appropriate evidence.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what new situation, unforeseen at the time the Committee were appointed, caused this letter to be written?

Sir W. Jowitt: What caused it to be written was the desire of the Committee to get evidence on this topic and to avoid anybody thinking, and thinking wrongly, that the terms of reference did not already extend to this topic.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme put forward by the Mexican Government for the repayment of Mexican Government bonds; and, in view of the fact that the net result of the offer is to pay 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. only of the value at which the bonds were issued and, as our foreign investments are to-day of increasing importance, will he refuse to give sanction to the scheme which, whilst bad in itself, is harmful as a precedent?

Professor Savory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether He has considered the scheme for dealing with the Mexican debt; is he satisfied, seeing that the present moment is inopportune for the debtor State to write down the capital value of its obligations by 80 per cent. without proving details of its financial conditions, that the plan represents a fair proposal by Mexico; what steps he has taken to deal with it; and has he informed the Mexican authorities that the plan is distasteful to all concerned here?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am aware that an arrangement has recently been concluded between the Mexican Government and the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico; and that this contemplates the making of an offer of settlement to the holders of certain direct debts of the Mexican Government, of which it is estimated that a minority is held in this country. No offer has yet been made to the bondholders and until such an offer has been made and considered by the Council of Foreign Bondholders, His Majesty's Government would regard it as premature to consider the question of approaching the Mexican Government on the subject.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the terms offered constitute the writing down of what is, in effect, a national asset by no less than 80 per cent., and in view of the extreme necessity of conserving our foreign assets at the present time, does he not consider that any scheme should include the possibility of the debtor country being able to pay under more favourable conditions?

Sir K. Wood: I would prefer not to comment on the matter until the offer is in fact received.

Mr. Graham White: Does my right hon. Friend consider that he has any duty to intervene in these matters which concern foreign Governments and private individuals in this country?

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that if the private individuals are successful the Chancellor will want to requisition their assets, and that therefore, he is very much concerned?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tax Reserve Certificates

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owing to the conditions laid down by the Inland Revenue authorities for the acceptance of Tax Reserve Certificates in settlement of Excess Profits Tax, those concerns who are able to agree their liability within the six months' period cannot use the certificates for that liability except by surrendering 1 per cent. interest; and whether he will consider altering the conditions?

Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend's Question seems to be based on a misunderstanding. For the purposes of Tax Reserve Certificates the Excess Profits Tax for any chargeable accounting period is deemed to be due, not when it becomes payable by virtue of Section 21, Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, but at the expiration of six months after the end of the chargeable accounting period for which the tax is charged. Provided that the date on which the tax is deemed to be due is not less than two months and not more than two years from the date of the Tax Reserve Certificate tendered, interest at the rate of 1 per cent. per annum is allowed for each complete month from the date of the Certificate to the date six months after the end of the chargeable accounting period (not to the date on which the Certificate is tendered or accepted). I would refer my hon. Friend to the Treasury Leaflet explaining Tax Reserve Certificates and their use which is obtainable from any banker. I am sending him a copy for his information.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it does not react against those companies which are able to agree their Excess Profits liability within the six months period?

Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend had better put that question on the Order Paper. It goes a little bit beyond this Question.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Bank of England is closed on each 1st January and consequently it is not possible for purchasers of Tax Reserve Certificates to obtain more than 23 months' interest, he will amend the prospectus so as to provide that interest shall be calculated daily instead of for each complete month?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I fear that my hon. Friend's proposal would require additional time and labour in the handling of these certificates which would be unjustifiable in present conditions.

Sir J. Mellor: Was it not the intention that these certificates should run for a maximum life of two years, and in those circumstances, why should purchasers who are prepared to hold for two years lose one month's interest?

Sir K. Wood: It is always difficult, of course, to say what intentions are, but this matter was clearly defined in the prospectus.

Purchase Tax (Small Traders)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the imposition of the Purchase Tax, he will give favourable consideration to the granting of some concessions to small shopkeepers and other traders who may have such articles as calendars and similar seasonable goods left over which become unsaleable, and on which Purchase Tax has been paid; and whether he will take into consideration losses in connection with breakages and transport of goods, on which Purchase Tax has been paid, and which is not now recoverable by the trader?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. These are ordinary trading risks which exist whether the goods carry Purchase Tax or not.

Mr. De la Bère: Will not my right hon. Friend ponder over this matter again and give some concession to these very small traders who are already very heavily hit as a result of the war? A concession would be very welcome, and I do not think it would hurt my right hon. Friend to give it.

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid this does not arise out of the Question, which concerns the Purchase Tax.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not most unfair that these small traders should not only be driven out of business, but have to bear this additional liability of the Purchase Tax? The right hon. Gentleman gets them both ways. Surely, some concession ought to be given to them.

Sir K. Wood: Not in this particular case.

Old Age and Widows' Pensions

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has any statement to make on the Government's policy in relation to old age and widows' pensions;
(2) whether he has considered the copy sent to him by the hon. Member for Dumbarton of the resolutions passed by the conference convened by the Lanarkshire County Council, fully representative of the labour, trade union and co-operative movements, demanding priority for old

age and widows' pension legislation, etc.; and what action he proposes to take to meet these demands?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on increased old age pensions and the demands of the Old Age Pensioners' Association for a basic pension of £1 10s. per week with the complete abolition of the means test?

Sir K. Wood: I am not at present in a position to add to the reply which I gave on 10th December to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend-on-Sea (Mr. Channon). [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1942; cols. 1707–8, Vol. 385.]

Mr. Gallacher: Were we not led to believe before the Recess that the Chancellor was going to take energetic steps to deal with the position of old age pensioners and to get rid of the means test as it affects them? Was there not some story in the Press that something like that was likely to happen?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has in mind the undertaking that was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and which was followed up in the King's Speech. The Government are engaged on that matter now.

Mr. Kirkwood: Surely, the Government have had time to consider this and to give something definite, as it is a serious matter as far as the old folk, the veterans of industry, are concerned?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, the matter is quite definite. The undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be carried out by the Government.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an approximate date when the Government will be prepared to state their policy in this matter?

Mr. Maxton: Is it not usual that when a definite promise of legislation is made in the King's Speech, the proposed legislation should follow almost immediately, and although it is now two months since the King's Speech, there has been no word about this legislation?

Sir K. Wood: The undertaking was given that my right hon. Friend would introduce it during this Session. That will be done.

Motor Vehicles Licence Duty

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the grievance felt by a large number of motor car users who are only able to use their motor cars, owing to Government restrictions, for a fraction of the time they were previously in use, in that they are still obliged to pay the same licence duty as when their motor cars were regularly in use; and whether the licence duty payable on motor cars will be proportionately reduced?

Sir K. Wood: The complaints that have reached my Department on this subject are few. I could not, particularly in present financial circumstances, depart from the principle that the amount of the licence duty payable on a motor vehicle does not depend upon the extent to which it is used.

Sir W. Davison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that what was previously the practice has no relation to existing circumstances, when the use of cars is restricted and many people have three gallons of petrol for the whole month, and yet at the same time have to pay the existing very heavy licence duty for the car?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid my attention must be devoted to retaining taxation and not to reducing it.

Parcels from Middle East (Customs Duty)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parcels to the United Kingdom from His Majesty's Forces in the Middle East during 1942 were refused by the recipients owing to inability to pay the Customs duties; and whether he will relax the Customs regulations in respect of such parcels?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. In reply to the second part, I am looking into the matter and hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to announce his decision within three weeks, and can he explain why it has taken two and a half years of warfare to consider this rather modest concession to our soldiers serving in the Middle East?

Sir K. Wood: I hope to be able to make the announcement very shortly.

Wages and Savings

Mr. Jewson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the amount of Savings in 1942 compares with the increase in wages paid during that year over the amount of those paid in 1938?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that figures for 1942 are not yet available, but I shall consider their publication in connection with my next Budget Statement.

Company Profits (Taxation)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases companies have been required to pay, in respect of part of their profits, such amounts of United Kingdom Excess Profits Tax and Income Tax that, after including Dominion Income Tax and allowing for Dominion Income Tax relief, aggregate taxation exceeded 100 per cent. on such part of the profits?

Sir K. Wood: As I explained in answer to my hon. Friend's Question on this subject of 19th January, the incidence of the Excess Profits Tax has to be judged by reference to the relation between the total tax payable and the total excess profit. The tax is charged upon the total excess profit and not upon any particular part of it, and I cannot therefore furnish the information asked for by my hon. Friend.

Sir J. Mellor: Be that as it may, does not my right hon. Friend agree that in these cases there is evidently a deterrent to production?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but other aspects have to be considered.

Income Tax and Surtax (Married Couples)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the loss to the Revenue if the incomes of married couple were assessed separately for the purpose of Income Tax while joint assessment was retained for the purpose of Surtax; and to what extent would this loss be reduced if separate assessments were confined to couples whose joint income did not exceed £1,000?

Sir K. Wood: I am not sure exactly what my right hon. Friend has in mind. If married couples were for Income Tax


but not for Surtax purposes treated entirely as single persons, so that husband and wife each become entitled to the single personal allowance of £80, and to have the first £165 of his or her taxable income charged at the reduced rate of 6s. 6d., there would be not a loss but a net gain to the Exchequer of between £50,000,000 and £100,000,000, practically the whole of which would come from married couples with joint incomes of less than £1,000. This is due to the fact that in a large number of cases, the husband alone has income, and their treatment as single persons would result in an increase in the tax payable.

Post-war Economic Policy

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a full statement of the Government's post-war economic policy?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) in the course of the Finance Debate on 16th December last.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that to endeavour to debate the Beveridge Report without knowing the economic national policy of the Government renders it ineffective, and will he not endeavour to throw some light on it?

Sir K. Wood: That is indicated in the reply.

Mr. Shinwell: Ought we not to make up our own minds on post-war economic policy before another nation does it for us?

Sir W. Davison: Surely the Government could give some indication of our probable commitments in other directions before we are asked to discuss them in this direction?

Sir K. Wood: It is not my duty to speak of the Business of the House, but I understand that there will be an opportunity for a Debate on the matter.

Service Pay and Peace-time Earnings

Sir T. Moore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed

to extend the same concession to one-man traders and ordinary commercial employees now in the Forces, as have been granted to civil and municipal servants, in regard to service pay being made up to pre-war earnings?

Sir K. Wood: If my hon. and gallant Friend is proposing that the taxpayer should make up the difference between Service pay and peace-time earnings to the classes indicated, I regret that I am not able to entertain the suggestion.

Sir T. Moore: My right hon. Friend has totally misunderstood my Question. What I asked was in fact why this discriminatory and privileged treatment is given to employees of the State and municipal authorities as against the ordinary civilian engaged in trade?

Sir K. Wood: My hon. and gallant Friend has made his point, and I have made mine.

Sir T. Moore: My right hon. Friend has not answered my Question.

Expenditure, Middle East (Control)

Mr. Astor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is satisfied that the control on the expenditure of public money in the Middle East is as efficient as that prevailing in Great Britain?

Sir K. Wood: All non-military expenditure and a considerable part of military expenditure in the Middle East is controlled in the same way as expenditure in this country. My hon. Friend will appreciate that on military expenditure arising out of operational requirements authority must be delegated to the Commander-in-Chief, and in such cases expenditure is controlled by the authorities on the spot in accordance with a system laid down by the appropriate Headquarters Departments. I have no reason to suppose that these arrangements are not working satisfactorily.

Mr. Astor: In view of the enormous sums of public money being spent in that area would my right hon. Friend consider inviting the Select Committee on National Expenditure to send a Sub-committee out to the Middle East?

Sir K. Wood: I should not like to go as far as that.

Sir H. Williams: As the standard indicated is so low that it is no better than here, is it not time to do something about it?

Mr. Astor: If a Sub-committee has produced excellent results in the home area, might not equally good results be produced in overseas areas?

Mr. A. Edwards: Is it necessary to send a Sub-committee? Have they not authority to go there?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Press and Public Relations (Staffs)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to effecting economies in man-power, he will direct the attention of the special committee set up to deal with this to the large publicity staffs of many Government Departments, especially where this work overlaps similar work done by another Department?

Mr. Assheton: The general position with regard to the staff engaged in the conduct of Government publicity was dealt with in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th August last. The Government will not overlook this service in its efforts to secure economies in man-power.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Government bear in mind that there is overlapping on a large scale and that the services of many of these people are no longer required?

Non-Industrial Civil Servants

Mr. Stokes: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make a statement as to the number of civilians employed in each of the main Ministries of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Assheton: Since the answer consists of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of the total number? He must know that.

Following is the answer:

The number of whole-time non-industrial Civil servants employed in all Government Departments at 1st October, 1942, was 664,577. The number of staff

employed at that date in the main employing Departments was as follows:


Post Office
191,449


Ministry of Supply
64,209


War Office
63,013


Ministry of Labour and National Service
41,233


Air Ministry
37,624


Ministry of Food
37,034


Admiralty
36,273


Inland Revenue
34,966


Ministry of Aircraft Production
15,478


Ministry of Information (including Postal and Telegraph Censorship Department)
14,971


Ministry of War Transport
14,894


Ministry of Works and Planning
13,978


Assistance Board
11,415


Customs and Excise
10,259


Ministry of Pensions
8,911


Ministry of Health
8,230


Home Office and Ministry of Home Security
7,840


Board of Trade
6,694

Oral Answers to Questions — FRUIT BOTTLING (RUBBER RINGS)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will arrange for a sufficient supply of rubber to be available for making rubber rings for closures used in bottling fruit?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): While my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of giving a categorical reply to his Question, arrangements have been made for the allocation of crude rubber for this purpose on a scale which it is hoped will prove sufficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY BUILDING (CONSTRUCTION COST)

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of the construction of a certain building on behalf of the Admiralty, the precise nature of which he has been informed?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): The estimated cost is £710,000.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a correspondingly proportionate amount available for the protection of the civil population?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAID, LONDON (BALLOON BARRAGE)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Secretary of State for Air why there was no balloon barrage up about midday on Wednesday, 20th January, in South-East London?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The balloon barrage was close-hauled over a part of the London area on the morning of Wednesday, 20th January, because important maintenance work on the London defences was then in progress. This work can only be carried out in daylight. There was no question of negligence or default. I notice that Questions have been placed on the Order Paper for answers on the next Sitting Day which relate to other aspects of this raid, and I propose then to make a comprehensive statement. Meanwhile, I am sure the House would wish me to take the present opportunity of expressing the deep sympathy which we all feel with the relatives of those who lost their lives and with the injured.

Sir A. Pownall: In the case of a daylight alarm of this sort is there not time for a certain number of balloons to be got up on an alert coming from the South-East coast, in view of the general consensus of opinion that there were no balloons up whatever and that enemy planes were flying literally just over the tops of houses and the pilots' faces could be seen by people in the streets?

Sir A. Sinclair: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right. The planes were flying extremely low, but in order to carry out the work to which I refer it is necessary to have an area of wide radius clear of balloons while it is going on, and there was not sufficient time to get the balloons up when the warning went.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that they were seen to go up too late?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, for the reason that I have explained.

Sir H. Williams: How long was it before they had orders to go up?

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot go into these operational details, but it is true that as soon as the warning was received they started to get the balloons up.

Mr. Ammon: What was the extraordinary alteration that had to be made?

Sir A. Sinclair: It is maintenance work, which has to go on continuously. In every part of the country there are some balloons close-hauled for that reason every day. It was fortuitous that it so happened in this particular area where the balloons were close-hauled that the raid occurred.

Sir H. Williams: Why were they all done on the same day?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have just explained that they are not all done on the same day. It was fortuitous that it was in this particular area that the enemy made the raid.

Sir A. Southby: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that maintenance work takes place over the whole of an area and not in respect of an individual site and that at any time a complete area may be out of action?

Sir A. Sinclair: An area with a considerable radius.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Was not the procedure carried out on that morning the same as is carried out every day, and is it not a fact that the balloon sites occupied by the Women's Auxiliary Air Force were just as quick in getting off the mark?

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman opposite thought I was referring to work on the balloons? It is not work on the balloons but work on the air defences of London.

Mr. Hopkinson: Had we not better wait until the next Sitting Day?

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (ROYAL WARRANT)

Mr. Ellis Smith (by Private Notice): asked the Leader of the House why the amended Pensions Warrant (Cmd. 6419) was submitted to His Majesty for signature before an opportunity had been given to this House to discuss its provisions?

Mr. Eden: The procedure adopted in this case was strictly constitutional and in accordance with precedent. The Royal Warrant is an instrument by which His Majesty expresses his will and pleasure as to the pensions and grants which, on the advice of the Government he directs


a particular Minister to pay. The Warrant thus comes into operation by reason of His Majesty's signature but by practice it is laid before the House of Commons and becomes a Command Paper. It is always open to the House, if it so desires, to discuss the provisions of a Warrant and if, in the light of any such discussions, further amendment appeared to the Government to be desirable His Majesty would be advised to issue an amending Warrant. There has thus been no departure on this occasion from constitutional form or recognised practice, and the usual steps can, of course, be taken if a discussion is generally desired.

Mr. Smith: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that no one raised the issue of the constitutional point? The point is that the procedure at present is undemocratic. Before His Majesty is advised in this way in future will the Leader of the House consider the advisability of giving the House an opportunity of considering the proposals of the Minister before they are submitted to His Majesty?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend, I think, misunderstands. The present position is and always has been that the Royal Warrant is submitted to His Majesty for signature on the responsibility of the Government, and I do not think I could possibly give an undertaking that before any Royal Warrant is submitted to His Majesty it will come to the House for discussion. The practice is that if the House wishes to raise any matters connected with the Royal Warrant it always has the opportunity to do so, and, if it is so decided by the Government, an amending Warrant can be issued.

Mr. Bellenger: Was not this Royal Warrant giving statutory effect only to matters that had already been carried out by the Minister for some considerable time past? What my hon. Friend and many hon. Members want is that at a time like this, when a Royal Warrant on pensions affects so many of our people, the House should have an opportunity of expressing in advance what it thinks it is desirable to include in the Warrant, because we know that it is rather difficult to get an amending Royal Warrant quickly.

Mr. Molson: Does not this raise the constitutional point that to propose expenditure

is a privilege of the Government and is not a matter for the House?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is quite right about this Royal Warrant, as I understand the position. I cannot give an undertaking that before a Royal Warrant is submitted to His Majesty the House will have an opportunity to discuss it. Apart from any constitutional practice, that would open the door far too wide as a matter of business. The right procedure is as I have laid it down, that if Members wish to discuss the Royal Warrant at any time, the matter can be raised through the ordinary channels and, if necessary, an amending Warrant moved later.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1942)

Estimate presented of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1943 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 37.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1942

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

The Chairman: Before I put this Vote, perhaps I should suggest to the Committee that as there are two Votes, one for £900,000,000 and one for £1,000,000,000, both covering the same subjects, the discussion should take place on the first Vote and the second should be purely formal.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred daring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have to ask the Committee for a further Vote of Credit of £900,000,000, which I hope will be sufficient to carry us until the end of the financial year. When I asked for the last Vote of £1,000,000,000, on 20th October, making £4,000,000,000 in all, I said that our daily average expenditure on the war was just under £12,750,000, made up of £10,500,000 on the Fighting Services and £2,250,000 on miscellaneous war services. Over recent weeks the total war expenditure has been at the rate of about £14,000,000 a day, an increase of £1,250,000, of which about £500,000 has occurred on the Fighting Services and £750,000 on the miscellaneous war services. The information available suggests that expenditure overseas in North Africa, Libya and other parts of the world has

probably now taken the place of rising production at home as the main factor determining the rate of increase in our Vote of Credit expenditure, though, as the Minister of Production indicated the other day, there will still be some expansion in our war production at home in the coming year. Moreover, we are now incurring substantial expenditure in this country by way of reciprocal aid to our Allies. We have reached a stage in the war when it is particularly difficult to say with any precision what our requirements are likely to be in the limited period to the end of March. The unspent balance of the existing Vote was £171,000,000 on 23rd January, and the Vote for £900,000,000 for which I ask will allow a margin for some further expansion by 31st March. I am also asking the Committee in accordance with the usual procedure, to vote a separate sum of £1,000,000,000 on account of the Vote of Credit provision required for the next financial year.
When I speak of these large sums and all that they mean to us and the taxpayer, I would like to assure the Committee again that we are mindful of ensuring so far as we can that these sums involving such heavy sacrifices by our people, are not wastefully spent, but that full value is obtained for their expenditure. The Treasury, I need hardly say, in conjunction with the Departments, is steadily continuing its efforts in this connection, and in all the activities of the Departments the need to find more man-power for the Fighting Services is itself enforcing economy in staffs. Apart from that, the Departments have well in mind the need for economical spending, and it can fairly be said that they are now profiting by the experience and lessons of over three years at war. I know that they would desire me to say on their behalf that they recognise the help that has, been given by the two Select Committees of the House which are concerned with monetary expenditure. The Public Accounts Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), whose enforced absence from the House we so much regret, makes a close examination of departmental expenditure which is of the greatest assistance in discouraging carelessness in finance and in securing that the financial relations between the State and its contractors are


on a basis which is reasonable for all parties. The Select Committee on National Expenditure, which is presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), approaches the same problem, as we all know, from a different angle. The surveys which it has made of the different types of war expenditure have been of much value to the Departments, and we are indebted to the members of both Committees for their considerable and arduous labours.
Expenditure of the order which I have just indicated, involving a total vote of Credit provision of £4,900,000,000 as against a Budget estimate of £4,500,000,000, will mean that my Budget figures of expenditure will be exceeded. In the excess is included the amount of expenditure on war damage equal to the receipts from contributions in premiums during the year, which, as the Committee will remember, was excluded from both sides of my Budget estimates. There is also a sum of about £50,000,000 which has to be voted for technical reasons, although it does not involve the provision of cash. That is because funds to that amount which accrued to Departments last year were not spent in that year, but in accordance with our normal procedure they must be formally covered by a Vote this year as they have been used to meet this year's expenditure. The estimate also contains a margin against contingencies.
Taking the year as a whole and in view of the difficulties of estimating this very varied expenditure, the Committee will, I think and hope, agree that an effective excess of the order of five per cent. or so on so large an original estimate as £4,500,000,000 is not unsatisfactory. I must obviously leave until my Budget speech any general review of the extent to which we have realised my anticipations that the amount of expenditure requiring domestic finance would be adequately covered by revenue, Savings and other resources. In the case of the Customs and Excise the published figures make it clear that the out-turn of revenue under this head will show a surplus on my Budget estimates. The duties on liquor, tobacco and entertainment, together with the Purchase Tax, are mainly responsible for that prospect. As regards the Inland Revenue, about 40 per

cent. of the Income Tax and a good deal of the Excess Profits Tax has yet to come in, and I can make no prophecies. I feel however that I can rely upon a continuance of the help which I have already received. I am confident that the taxpayers will continue to show the same public spirit as in the past and, recognising our vital needs, will pay their taxes promptly. I should like to add a word about the published figures of receipts from the Excess Profits Tax. The figures for the first nine months of the last financial year include substantial sums—

The Chairman: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he appears to be raising a matter which is for Committee of Ways and Means, and that we are now in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Benson: On a point of Order. On your own suggestion, Colonel Clifton Brown, we are taking these two Votes in one Debate. Surely that tends to extend the scope of the discussion.

The Chairman: Both Votes are being taken in Committee of Supply.

Sir K. Wood: I can take the opportunity of making a statement on the Excess Profits Tax side of the matter, perhaps in answer to a Question at a later date, if that is necessary. I understand that the Committee wants to proceed to other Business, but before concluding I would like to stress again that the main effect of our war expenditure is to increase purchasing power particularly in the lower ranges of income. It is not only that the total of such purchasing power has been increased; the incomes of many millions of individuals has risen appreciably, on the average. I would recall to the Committee that we have now for a long time stabilised the cost of living and that the prices of many goods and services which do not enter into the cost of living index, have been controlled. In this House and outside attention is often called to the further field of uncontrolled goods, the prices of which have certainly risen appreciably. I think it would be a misuse of language to suggest that these cases of higher prices mean that we are suffering from an advanced stage of that disease which is generally referred to as inflation. Some of these uncontrolled goods are, certainly, things which most


people must buy at one time or another and a rise in price is a matter for regret.
It may well be that there will be some extension of the field of price control, but in any case I do not think we must exaggerate the importance of these particular high prices in comparison with the much larger and more important field in which price control is already operative. As regards some of the uncontrolled goods, so far from high prices being a matter for anxiety, they have the positive advantage of being a deterrent of unnecessary expenditure. I would add that in such cases everybody has the remedy in his or her own hands, that is, to refrain from buying, and that applies both to the larger and the smaller income. We are precluded by our Standing Orders from discussing on this Vote the matter of Savings, otherwise I would have said something about it. But I would appeal to everybody who is concerned in this matter to regard it as a high duty at any rate to refrain from unnecessary expenditure at this particular time.
Looking at our war expenditure as a whole, I am reminded of a comment made by a biographer of one of my famous predecessors in office. He referred to
the enormous truth that Budgets are not merely affairs of arithmetic but, in a thousand ways, go to the root of the prosperity of individuals, the relations of classes and the strength of kingdoms.
Times have changed since then, and the great questions of the day are not what they were, but Lord Morley's comment is, in essence, even truer of our war-time financial arrangements than it was of any Budget of the 19th century. The measures which we have taken against inflation are safeguarding the well-being of all our citizens. The universal and ready acceptance of sacrifices has drawn our people closer together than ever before; and I would say that in this great struggle for freedom, the general soundness of our finance is definitely adding material and moral strength to this Kingdom.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The Committee has listened with great interest, as it has shown by its attention, to the Chancellor's speech and to the facts which he has been able to give us. There was one subject which I think would have come well within your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, and which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might at

some future time see fit to make some remarks upon—I refer to the subject of Lend-Lease. We heard with great interest the remarks which Mr. Stettinius made in the United States on this subject. He pointed out that Lend-Lease was now a two-way arrangement, and that America owed to us a considerable debt for the services which we were rendering to them, and that although, by the terms of Lend-Lease, no money debt was incurred, that was an obligation to set on the other side. Perhaps at some future time the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us how far the services we are rendering to the United States, and probably to other countries, constitute a substantial increase in expenditure, which will affect the daily figure which he gave us in one part of his speech.
I do not propose to say very much, because I know it is the wish of the Committee to conclude this part of our business quickly, but we cannot let this opportunity go by without noting the revolutionary change in the outlook of the war since the last Vote of Credit was moved and carried. Not only have there been the great military successes in North Africa and in Russia, but perhaps even more significant is the change of tone in the comments upon the war inside Germany and Italy. There they have begun to speak in terms of a war of survival, instead of a war of victorious conquest. We may be sure that they are not making those statements to their own people without good cause. But I hope that neither the country not the House, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be lulled into any false sense of security thereby.
Great hunters have told me that their moment of greatest danger is when they await the charge of the wounded beast. At that moment all the timidity, caution, and prudence of the beast are thrown aside, and unless the hunter is wary he may in a moment of success meet grave injury, or even death. Our position is somewhat the same. Germany is wounded, but Germany is still full of vigour and capacity to fight. Her war machine, mishandled though it has been by the intuitions of Hitler, is nevertheless exceedingly powerful. Her people at home and her soldiers in the field are still prepared to make incalculable sacrifices to meet their obligations, as they see it, to their Fuehrer. We know quite well—


we have been told officially—that the U-boat menace, instead of being overcome, is increasing.
This is therefore the time for the peak of our sustained effort to be reached. I trust that the Chancellor, although relaxing none of his vigilance against waste or misuse of the money which the nation has entrusted to his care, will stint nothing in order to secure victory and to accelerate its achievement. Our people in these islands are heavily burdened; they have great toil to do in the factories, they have large burdens of taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put upon them; but I am convinced that they realise, as we do, that their hardships are light compared with the grave perils on the battlefield, on the sea, and in the air, and with the tortures to which subject Europe is having to submit. They will respond to the lead which this House and the Chancellor give them, and they will work and bear sacrifices in order to achieve an early end of the world misfortunes with which we are confronted.

Sir Frank Sanderson: I rise to make one point for the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As always, he has given us interesting and comprehensive figures relating to what I would term the National profit and loss account. He has described the income which he has received and the expenditure which is likely to be incurred. I would suggest that the time has arrived when we might reasonably expect some form of comprehensive balance-sheet. It is wrong to assume that the figures which we have heard to-day represent expenditure which has no asset side to it. In a time of war my right hon. Friend uses a considerable amount of that expenditure on what are real assets. He purchases land and buildings and machinery, and he also purchases and finances other industries. He purchases raw material and hands that raw material to our great industrialists, to be converted into manufactured commodities for war purposes. But we never see any set of figures showing the value of these assets, which in the aggregate amount to a vast sum. Only to-day my right hon. Friend stated that in regard to the War Damage Insurance Fund, he shows the total amount paid out to the owners of properties that have sustained

damage but he does not present to this House a balance-sheet showing the amount of money which he has received in the form of premiums for the insurance, and whether the transaction to any given period of time shows a profit or a loss. Merely to show the amount my right hon. Friend has paid out is very misleading. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has received more money in War Damage Contributions than he has paid out, but, as I have stated, we see only one side of the transaction. Will my right hon. Friend consider presenting to the House some form of balance-sheet, even though it be a balance showing only those assets which he knows at some time or other he will be able to liquidate, the proceeds of which he can offset against the total cost of the war? This figure might conceivably be several thousand millions of pounds. We have no idea of the amount which has been expended to date upon what will remain a tangible asset which at some time or other can and will be liquidated by my right hon. Friend. In the light of what I have said I will ask him to consider giving some form of balance-sheet in addition to his analysis of the cost of the war, in his next Budget statement.

Mr. Lewis: We vote these immense sums of money not only for the purpose of bringing the war to a successful conclusion but of winning it as quickly as may be, but it seems to me that in one respect we are neglecting our opportunities. I refer to the bases in French territory being used by the Germans for furthering their submarine campaign. I fear that, from natural reluctance to destroy French property and take French lives, we are failing effectively to prevent the Germans from using those bases. It may be true that when a submarine goes into Lorient, for example, it goes into a concrete emplacement where it cannot be got at, but what would be the use of it if we had converted Lorient into a heap of rubble?

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Member aware that several very severe attacks have been made on Lorient in the last few weeks?

Mr. Lewis: Certainly I am, but my complaint is that these raids have not been serious, continuous, or frequent enough either on Lorient or on other bases. It may be true that the result


would be a loss of many French lives, but it is in French interests that the war should be made shorter. I urge that we should take that means of shortening it. Nothing is more likely to prolong the war than even partial success for the submarine campaign. The opportunity is there, and I hope that the Government will not hesitate, despite the incredible loss that it will bring upon the French people, to make those bases useless for the Germans.

Mr. Stokes: To-day is a splendid opportunity to reproach the Government for their waste of public funds, and I had intended to launch an attack on the whole question of tank production and designs because of the inefficiency of tank boards, past, present and, as it looks like, future; but I understand that a day is to be allotted for this very purpose, so that there shall be a full-dress Debate. In view of that fact, I do not propose to detain the Committee. One fact ought to be made known as widely as possible. It is that, certainly until six weeks ago—I do not know the exact position to-day—nobody on this Tank Board, which is responsible for approving the design and production of tanks, had any experience of tank usage in the field of modern war. It seems a perfectly staggering example of Governmental inefficiency. The trouble is that the people in possession are afraid to have anybody alongside them who really knows the facts, and that is not good enough when the lives of our soldiers are at stake. As I propose to defer further comment until another occasion, I would merely ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make representations in the right quarter so that this glaring inadequacy shall be put right at the earliest possible date and somebody shall be appointed on the Tank Board who has used tanks in the field and will see that our public funds are not wasted.

Sir Adam Maitland: It would be unfortunate if the remarks just made by my hon. Friend were not reinforced from some other quarter of the Committee—although he raises many hares on many occasions. I do not necessarily support all his observations with regard to the production of tanks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that there had been some improvement in the condition of our financial affairs in recent months but it would be entirely fallacious to assume that everything is as

good and economical as it might be. The House of Commons is the traditional custodian of the public purse, and should insist upon the importance of the Government exercising the greatest prudence and caution in the expenditure of public money. Money is a very important weapon of war, and there will be important consequences if money is now wasted. I sometimes think we are so accustomed to talking in terms of millions that we do not get a comprehension of what they really involve.
To some extent to-day, our national finances are being run as something like Mr. Macawber finance. It can be no satisfaction to us that we are trying to balance the Budget by the assistance in the balancing of a tremendous amount of borrowings or Savings. We are in fact spending capital and are building up a tremendous number of I.O.U's which sooner or later will have to be honoured. I would tell my right hon. Friend that there are still serious matters which ought to be remedied in our war expenditure. If they are not remedied, they will affect our post-war conditions as well as the present position. I understand that 1943 is to be a peak year in production and output as well as in expenditure; there are many matters to-day on which greater Government action should be exercised. Let me give one illustration. The Minister of Labour has announced that we are to have a great transfer of labour; one of his difficulties will be accentuated by the great differences in the wages being paid, some of them adding unnecessarily to the cost of war production and indeed to wasteful expenditure. The task of the Ministry of Labour will be a particularly arduous if not an impossible one if such difficulties are not dealt with. These are practical matters the Government have to face, and they should seriously consider with greater courage than hitherto shown the stabilisation of wages. Hon. Gentlemen opposite the Government may not like to hear it, but wages are one of the most important factors in our costs, and excessive wages in war production lead to unrest and disturbance in many important industries. 
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it is possible, in connection with the next statement which he makes, to present something in the nature of a statement of the nation's wealth. I believe it would be a colossal


figure and would show that in spite of our great losses during the war we still have enormous resources. It should cover a larger field than that of capital expenditure on war, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Baling (Sir F. Sanderson) and would be a welcome addition to the statements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes from time to time. It would be of great assistance in relation to post-war problems and in demonstrating to the world generally our ability to face post-war problems.

Mr. A. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has stated that wages are the most important factor in costs and rather suggested that they cause the increased cost of materials. Would he say whether wages are actually caught up in cost in the increase in cost of living, and, if so, by how much?

Sir A. Maitland: I would not like to answer that specific question without consideration but would like to answer the question by giving an indication of what is in my mind. In regard to one particular industry, the bonus rates are something like 450 per cent. over the basic rates, and when attention was called to the fact the answer was that it was not possible to do anything because of an agreement between the master federation and the trade union whereby a rate, once fixed, could not be altered. In my mind was the thought that such a case called for Government intervention.

Mr. Benson: I should like to ask the Chancellor one question relating to the reorganisation of the Central Office of the National Savings Committee. I do not propose to raise any question about national Savings, but purely the question of the organisation itself. As the Committee will remember, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Westmorland (Colonel Stanley) was some little time ago appointed to the chairmanship of the Committee, and rumour had it that the purpose was to overhaul the machine and to try to stimulate the somewhat medieval pace with which that office worked. Unfortunately, after the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been there about six or seven weeks, he was appointed to another position. I say "unfortunately" from the point of view of the National Savings Committee. I would like to know, first of all, whether

he has made any report to the Chancellor and, secondly, whether the Chancellor proposes to appoint someone in his place to continue this work of stimulation.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: I would like to follow for one moment my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland), who spoke about the danger of wages. This is not a popular topic. The country supplies this money to the Chancellor and will supply him in unlimited amount. It is one munition of war which nobody will restrict, but a time is coming when there will be competition for a commodity which we cannot increase, and that is labour. My hon. Friend has pointed out that if the amount paid for labour is not regulated in some way, inflation or something like it is bound to ensue. I had a little thing brought to my notice. It is an advertisement for labour from a firm who describe themselves as Filter Media Manufacturers. It offers boys straight from school 1s. an hour to learn a trade; a labourer 3s. 2½d. an hour; and a millwright 5s. an hour, for a 44-hour week. It says that it is necessary Government work and that these positions are permanent now and in peace-time, that workers of between 40 and 50 years of age are required, and that applicants must now be in receipt of 50 per cent. above Union rates. I am not attempting to say that these wages are too high or too low at this moment, but I do want to draw the Chancellor's attention to this matter. If this is allowed to go on and people on necessary work are allowed to compete in a market which is limited, it will start a spiral which will be difficult to control.

Mr. Molson: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend behind me and by the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland). I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably have studied the very remarkable speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour when he replied to the Debate on the stabilisation of wages. In that speech he argued from his great experience of the very great difficulty of stabilising wages because he was afraid it would involve interfering with the long established machinery of negotiation between the trade unions and the employers' organisations. Those of us in this House who have argued in favour of the need for


some stabilisation of wages have not wanted in any way to break up the existing system of negotiating them in detail, but in view of the fact that more than 54 per cent. of the total production of the country is now being paid for by the Exchequer, we argued that it would be proper for the Exchequer to have representation in any negotiations which did take place, and that the general policy should be accepted that as long as the cost of living was stabilised at 30 per cent. above the pre-war level wages should also be restricted. No one has argued on economic grounds in favour of a policy of that kind more than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), although he did put forward certain conditions which I think any fair-minded man would say carry very great weight. I hope the Chancellor will consider again whether it would be possible for him, as the guardian of the public purse, to reopen the matter with the Minister of Labour.
In the whole of that speech by the Minister of Labour he never answered the economic argument which had been used in the Debate, which was, put in two sentences, just this, that at a time when the President of the Board of Trade is reducing the consumption of production goods for the civilian population and when there is therefore so much less available to be purchased, if the purchasing medium in the pockets of the people is increasing all the time, there is an almost uncontrollable force making in the direction of inflation.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Member agree that if this money is being paid to the population and they cannot or do not spend it, actually it is in effect a promise that they will be paid after the war is over and that in fact it does not interfere with production at the moment?

Mr. Molson: That is so, providing it works entirely satisfactorily. That is why I have no objection to payment in a form encashable after the war. Anything which will encourage the purchase of goods after the war is extremely desirable.
Would the Chancellor give an answer to this point? Shortly before Christmas he came before the House and obtained authority for the further large increase in the fiduciary note issue. He expressed

the opinion that it was not a symptom of inflation and that when the Christmas period was over it would be possible to reduce the fiduciary note issue by that amount. I have not seen that that reduction has taken place. If it has not taken place, it would seem to indicate that we have taken another substantial step in the direction of inflation.

Mr. Woods: I may be grossly out of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I would rather like to express the appreciation of the back benchers in your appointment and in your showing us that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be out of Order. We greatly appreciate it.
The latest speeches have most concentrated on the vigilance of the Chancellor with regard to expenditure on wages. I think it is an item which can be grossly exaggerated, and very often quite exceptional isolated cases come to the attention of Members of the House which may perhaps or may not be justified. I think it is these exceptional cases which provoke most dissatisfaction. For example, I heard recently of a couple of schoolboys who had left school going back to see their headmaster and boasting of wages higher than their teachers were receiving. Cases like that are quite exceptional, I think, and might be dealt with in the interest of standardisation of wages. In the question of the circulation of money the volume of circulation is a matter of vital interest to the Chancellor of the country. Perhaps the full benefit of it cannot be taken advantage of as in former times, when firms were advising us to buy this or that which we might or might not have wanted. Firms are now advising us to cut down expenditure. I can conceive in relation to the post-war problems that the volume of the purchasing power of the people will be the most vital factor in meeting the problem of unemployment, and I hope that in his vigilance in this connection, the Chancellor will not be too much led astray by the enthusiasm of the representatives of the employers.
An hon. Member raised one point which should receive the Chancellor's close consideration, namely, the whole form of the presentation of his figures. It does not arise so much on a mere Vote such as we are dealing with to-day, but when it comes to the Budget figures I think that the


Chancellor and the Treasury should look at the whole question of national finance much more in terms of a business undertaking than as a mere spending of public wealth. I am satisfied that vast potential assets are being built up which should be taken into consideration even now in the assessment of his demands oh the public for money.
I have two more points to make. One is that while I appreciate what my right hon. Friend in front here said in expressing appreciation for the vigilance of the Treasury in proper economies, I still feel that there is a considerable scope for cutting down expenditure. It is easy for us here in Committee to assume that the main burden is the burden of wages, but a vast proportion of the expenditure is not just wages, and if economies are to be achieved, it seems to me we have to set ourselves a much higher standard of getting value for money in the Service Departments. It is there where the bulk of this expenditure is going. I have had experience and observation of the working of the military machine, and I have come to the conclusion that in some commands at any rate if there are alternative ways of doing things the officer in charge who has the deciding voice has a very simple process of deciding which is the best way. He decides that that which costs the most money must be the best. That is ridiculous.
There are many ways by which we could get much more out of our expenditure. I will give one example. A vast airfield was taken over which was an airfield in the last war. It has only been party used in this. Therefore, it had to have a number of blocks. There were many trees with vast spreading branches, and it would have improved them if these had been removed and would have given a job to a number of men stationed there. Instead of doing it in that way, vast expediture has been incured in buying secondhand and derelict cars and putting them all over the field, while on the awnings close by are notices urging the necessity for scrap iron and so forth. It is obviously a subject for a humourous cartoonist I suggest to the Chancellor in this connection that he should consider the relative value for money which is secured in different countries. I am not asking him to take America as a model,

but I think he might with some advantage get into closer touch with the Russian authorities, for I am satisfied from the reports we get and the actual financial strength of Russia before the war that what they have done is simply miraculous. They have not the vast resources we have financially and so forth, demonstrating that it is possible to achieve satisfactory results with a lower expenditure.
On the whole, the Admiralty have a much better record, but even there there are marginal cases where there might be a fuller use of personnel and some discouragement given to extravagance. Only last night I travelled down from the North in a compartment full of Service boys, and among them were a few naval ratings returning to a certain depot. There was one of five years' service, and his "grouse" was that he was doing nothing. They go into a certain yard and are supposed to do things, and they muck about and pass the time away and make tea and knock off in the afternoon. He was fed up to the teeth. In present circumstances it may be that there are reasons for it, and I would not take notice of it if it were an individual case, but in the discussion which transpired that was the view of what was happening at that depot. Although it may be a small thing, it is something which requires careful consideration. It would perhaps not achieve much economy, but it would help public morale and people would feel some satisfaction in making their contributions to the Exchequer if they had the feeling that every effort was being made to see that full value was got for the expenditure.
I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be a good thing if the impression was given that he looked upon the Select Committee on National Expenditure as a real ally. It is obvious from some of the publications that some of the Service Departments that have been investigated rather resent the attentions of this Committee. The Committee are doing a very valuable work indeed, and all strength to their elbow. It is not an easy thing in war-time to stand up against a Service Department, but we are satisfied as Members of this House that the members of that Committee are representative of public opinion and are justified in the work they are doing, and the results amply justify them. If the Chancellor


could make it clear to all and sundry that he looks upon that Committee as a sort of watch dog and that his relationships with them are harmonious, they would be encouraged to be even bolder in their investigations.

Sir K. Wood: They are outside the terms of reference.

Mr. Woods: If they are outside the terms of reference, it is up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put them inside so that he gets full benefit from their activities. I would suggest, if I am in Order, that the expenditure is now so colossal—and nobody knows what its duration is likely to be—that many of us feel that the whole of our orthodox financial system, which necessitates Votes of Credit and immense taxation, is being stretched to the limit. I have an indication that I am on the borderline of Order, but I have said enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appreciate that it is up to him to give a lead in the introduction of any innovations necessary to strengthen his hand and enable the country to carry this great campaign to a successful conclusion.

Mr Cecil Wilson: A good deal has been said with regard to waste, and there are cases continually occurring in which that is emphasised. A short time ago I was seeing one of my friends in Sheffield, and he was complaining of an enormous amount of waste going on. He proceeded to say, "You know, I am not a teetotaller. I frequently go into a licensed house, because I like a drink of beer, but I cannot go into a licensed house at all without seeing men pull handfuls of notes out of their pockets and treat everybody all round." That may be a very good thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is a very bad thing for the morals and future of the country. There ought to be some means found for dealing with the matter, not from the total abstinence point of view, but from a really rational and reasonable point of view.
There is another case to which I would like to refer, dealing with waste. A month or rather more ago I received a letter from a large firm in Sheffield doing something like 100 per cent. of war work, and the complaint they made was that for some months they had been trying to get a reply from the Ministry of Supply in regard to

a machine which they wanted and had been unable to get. I went through the correspondence and found that, on the side of the firm, over a period of months there had been continual letters sent asking for a reply to their first letter, and on the other side there were four letters, and three of these were simply a repetition, asking for information which had been supplied again and again. I wrote to the gentleman at the Ministry of Supply who was responsible, and I put before him three alternatives. I said, "Do you wish me to raise this matter with Sir Andrew Duncan, or to raise it in the House, or can the firm have some reply?" The matter has been settled. The machine they want is to be supplied. But you cannot allow that kind of thing, with repeated letters being addressed and firms, anxious to do the best they can, being held up in that connection.
There is one other point I want to raise, and in that I am possibly finding myself entirely alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will get his money, there is no doubt about that. He said at the close of his speech that what he was doing was for the prosperity of the individual and for the well-being of all citizens. A good many on both sides of the House have protested from time to time in certain directions and have expressed a very strong view that something ought to be done on the question of pensions and allowances in various directions and nothing is done. We had the answer to-day to a series of Questions simply showing that, while we can spend £1,900,000,000 upon war, we cannot spend any adequate sum for the relief of the people in our country who have borne the burden and heat of the day for a long series of years. I do not want to discuss that at all, because I should probably find that I was not quite in Order. When you are talking about spending £1,900,000,000 do realise, if you can—I am not quite sure you can—that there are people, who are not perhaps very vocal throughout the country, who are increasingly coming to feel that you do not mean a word of what you say—I am not referring to any particular part of the House—when you say they ought to have more money. We owe a debt to them which ought to be paid, and which we ought to be able to pay when we are spending such enormous sums of money as we are doing to-day.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps it would be convenient for me to answer a few points that have been raised; it will not necessarily terminate the Debate, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will deal with any further points. It will, however, be convenient for me if I say a word or two now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) referred to the important and very interesting statement that appears in our public Press this morning about "reciprocal aid." In that statement, which I am sure we all read with exceptional interest, Mr. Stettinius, who is concerned with this in America, made a statement of the help which had been given by this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh invited me on some occasion—not now—to amplify that statement and to inform the House of Commons what has been done, perhaps in more detail that has yet been presented. I will give consideration to that request and see whether there will be a convenient opportunity when I may say something further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) suggested that I might perhaps present a more comprehensive balance-sheet, and I will consider that, although the matter is not without its difficulties. It is very difficult indeed to estimate the value of some of the capital equipment that we are acquiring at this time, and I would not care to be asked to put a value to many of the things upon which we have had to expend large sums of money in connection with the war. I only say that by way of a hint as to the difficulties immediately you begin to approach this matter. I suppose that no one has given such full statements and particulars to the House of our financial affairs than I have done during the last two or three years and I am sure the Committee will give me credit for this. I hope to be able to continue that information in my forthcoming Budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) made reference to the conduct of the war in connection with submarine bases, and so did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who returned to his familiar theme of tanks. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I will convey his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the First Lord. I am very grateful to all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member

for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland), the hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Wootton-Davies), and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) in calling attention to instances of waste and extravagance. It is right that these matters should constantly be brought before the House of Commons and the public; tremendous sums of money are being spent, and one cannot help being suspicious that a certain amount of money must be wasted. Anything which in a proper and careful way calls attention to such cases of waste and inefficiency will certainly be helpful to me. The hon. Member for Finsbury need be in no doubt as to where I stand with respect to the representations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I hope to make some reference to them on the third Sitting Day; I consider that in many respects they are being very helpful in connection with the Civil Service. I regard them as strong allies in the war against inefficiency and waste, and I always approach their reports, particularly from my own point of view, in that spirit.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) referred to the organisation of the National Savings Committee and to the fact that my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for the Colonies, occupied the position of Chairman of that organisation. I am not permitted under the rules of Order to talk about Savings, but as regards the chairmanship of the Movement, I intend to fill that vacancy. I want to have a little time for consideration, however, because it is an important position, and it is necessary for the future of the Movement that I should get a first-class, efficient man to take this post. I may say that I had several conversations with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies before he took his present office, and I have no doubt that I and the Movement will benefit from the suggestions which were made. I was, of course, disappointed on one count that my right hon. and gallant Friend had to relinquish that post, but, on the other, I was gratified that he was becoming a Minister of the Crown.
Several hon. Members raised the question of wages and the effect they have upon our social economy. I do not think I can add very much to what I have previously said, but I shall have something to say when I present my Budget. The Government's policy remains as stated in


their White Papers. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made a very powerful and convincing defence of the present policy of the Government. It is true that one could raise objections and criticisms, but on the other hand, you have to take into account its general effect and counter-balance what could be a disadvantage with the tremendous advantages to the nation of the policy which has been adopted. I would, however, say again that our stabilisation policy is dependent upon everybody acting reasonably—employers and employed alike. What has weighed very much with me in adhering to this policy has been the tremendous advantage that has accrued to the nation as a result of the peace and good will in industry which have existed during these three years. This has been of inestimable value to the nation. Stabilisation policy, with all its advantages, would have to be abandoned if there was a breakdown on the wages side.
One hon. Member raised the question of the fiduciary note issue. I do not think he will find that I gave an undertaking that there would be any reduction, but it is true that a great deal of the extra currency which went out before Christmas has returned from circulation. I think it is unlikely that we shall actually reduce the fiduciary note issue itself. I am of the opinion, which I have expressed on several occasions, that I do not think an increase in the fiduciary issue is direct or tangible evidence of inflation. It is largely occasioned by a change in the habits of people. A great deal more money is being paid out in cash to-day and what is unfortunate—and I have endeavoured on public platforms and in this House to counteract it—is that large sums of money are being kept by people in their pockets, hidden away in tea chests, and such like. It would be far better if this money was placed somewhere else.
I will carefully study all the suggestions which have been made to see if I can profit by any of them. If I can do so, I will. These large sums necessary for war expenditure are a considerable strain on the national economy. I will not argue with the hon. Member who said that the longer the war lasts the better it is for everybody. That is an impression which I cannot for one moment accept and which others would not accept. It is obvious

that the most expensive war in history is a serious drain on the finances of the country, and we shall have to take account of that in our future policy. I hope the Committee will now give me this Vote, because I understand that some Members are anxious to get on to the next Business.

Mr. Woods: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he say whether he contemplates any consultation or collaboration with his counterpart in the Soviet Union, who has a similar difficult task?

Sir K. Wood: I would be only too glad to meet him.

Mr. Stokes: I understand that in the early part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply he did not deal with the specific point that I put to him.

Sir K. Wood: About tanks?

Mr. Stokes: No, the Tank Board. The Chancellor is responsible for the control of money, and I want to ask whether, in view of the fact that this national scandal still obtains—that no competent person with experience of tanks in the field is on the Board—he will withhold from the Ministry of Supply the money he provides until a competent person is found? Will he undertake to do that?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: Then I will vote against him.

Mr. A. Edwards: I want to raise with the Chancellor the question of stabilisation. He tells us repeatedly that the Government have a policy of stabilisation but I put it to him that they are, on the contrary, deliberately following a policy of inflation. On this point of wages, I would like the Chancellor to keep this fact in mind. We are told that the cost of manufactured goods is constantly increasing mainly because wages are increasing. I do not think that is true; there is nothing to support the suggestion that wages have ever caught up with the increased cost of living. The Chancellor's policy has increased the cost of manufactured goods and, incidentally, the cost of living. Wages have followed that increase, but, in fact, have never passed it. It is only recently that they have caught up with it. When hon. Members talk about the effect of men working over-time


and getting more money, I ask the Chancellor to keep in mind the fact that other interests are asking him for special attention and concessions to wasting assets. When a man works over-time there is a wasting asset and he is entitled to extra earnings. While earnings have increased, basic wages have not increased and it is an entirely wrong impression that increased wages are responsible for the increased cost of manufactured goods. In fact, it is not true.
I would draw the Chancellor's attention to a simple example. Last week the price of coke was increased by 1s. 6d. per ton. The Chancellor has to find practically all the money for all the goods that are manufactured in steel in this country. Instead of absorbing the increased cost of coal or coke himself the Chancellor allows it to be put on and there is not a single thing manufactured in this country that will not have to be increased in price as a direct result. In the end the Chancellor pays it. Some of the officials of his Department smile at me when I complain and indicate that inflation is rather a good thing for the Chancellor. Let the Chancellor tell us that he profits by inflation and wants it; not warn us against its dangers while deliberately encouraging it. There is one other point I want to mention—I have left it to the last because I shall probably be ruled out of Order upon it. The Chancellor said that people have money in tea chests. Well, those who have it in tea chests or in their stockings are the most patriotic of people, because they are lending to the Chancellor free of charge—

The Chairman: I failed to stop the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with that matter because I did not catch what he was saying, but it is out of Order on this occasion.

Mr. Edwards: Then I must pass on. I will ask the Chancellor to take steps to stop the manufacture of certain goods so that people who have extra money will not be able to purchase and will thus, automatically, save. It is nonsense to allow people to advertise a wide range of goods, in newspapers and magazines—which, incidentally, must be making a fortune—while the Chancellor, on the same pages, is appealing to people not to spend their money. It is a waste of paper and man-power. The Chancellor

has all kinds of control and he should discourage manufacturers from making these goods.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for General Navy, Army and Air Services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the Realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Orders of the Day — VOTE OF CREDIT, 1943

(EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £900,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, the sum of £1,000,600,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, as its long Title states, consists of three parts. In the first place, it appoints a Minister of Town and Country Planning in England and Wales—it does not apply to Scotland—and makes certain provisions in connection with that appointment. Secondly, it transfers to the Minister certain existing statutory powers, namely, those powers which are now exercisable by the Minister of Works and Planning and such other functions as exist under particular Acts of Parliament, mainly private Acts of Parliament. Thirdly, it provides for the establishment of certain statutory Commissions to assist the Minister in his work.
The House will recall that as recently as last year we transferred from the Ministry of Health to the Minister of Works and Buildings, whom we constituted for this purpose Minister of Works and Planning, certain powers existing under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. The marriage, therefore, between Works and Planning has been of such short duration that the House may fairly wonder why it is that the young married couple are already contemplating a divorce. Of course, we are dealing here with a very difficult and, in the main, a novel subject, for although we have known of town and country planning ever since the late Mr. John Burns, whose recent death we all deplore, introduced his Bill of 1908, yet we have never hitherto tried to bring about a national policy in regard to that planning. We have had from time to time a series of Ministerial pronouncements to the effect that we had decided to embark upon such a national policy, but I think this is the first time we have inserted in a Bill words which show that the duty of the new Minister is to secure consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with regard to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales.
The problem of bringing about that national policy was not only novel but beset with difficulties, and I feel we need not apologise to the House for the fact that

we have profited by our experience and that we are in a position, as we believe, to improve upon our original idea. The working of planning since the fusion of the Minister of Works and the Minister of Planning has satisfied us on two points. The first is that if town and country planning is to be a reality, it will require the whole-time services of a front-rank Minister. It is, we are satisfied, physically impossible for any Minister already busily engaged in other directions to devote the necessary time and attention which, it is obvious to us from experience, this subject demands. There is a second reason. We think it is of importance that the new Minister should not only be, but should also appear to be, entirely impartial in his judgment as to the right use of any particular piece of land. If he can be regarded as a Minister already predisposed by reason of his other Ministerial duties to lean to a particular type of land use, he will for that very reason be less able to exercise his influence. For instance, if a question were to arise as to whether a particular piece of land should be utilised for building or utilised for agriculture, the fact that the Minister of Planning is also Minister of Works might make it appear that he would lean rather to a building use than to an agricultural use. For both those reasons, we have come to the conclusion, on reconsideration, that it is better to appoint someone whose sole Ministerial function is in connection with town and country planning.
Perhaps I may say a few words as to the reason we have selected that title for the Minister. It is to be observed that we do not call him a Minister of Planning. We propose to call him Minister of Town and Country Planning for this reason. Having myself recently given much thought to this question of planning, and having heard many arguments about it, I have come to the conclusion that the ambiguity of that word "planning" is at the root of the trouble. We frequently use the word "planning" in two wholly different senses and frequently fail to realise that we are passing from one sense to the other sense. Sometimes we talk about Planning with a big P as opposed to planning with a little p. Sometimes we talk about national planning as opposed to physical planning. When we used to talk, in the old days, about, for instance, the Russian Five-Year Plan, we meant something much wider merely


than the right use of land: and when we talk about the planning which is involved in our endeavour to build up what I may term as the "Better Britain" policy, we obviously include, and must include, such topics as the location of industry, the prevention of cyclical depressions, education, public health, social services, agricultural policy, the development of roads, harbours and ports, and last, but by no means least, financial policy. All those matters must obviously come into Planning, and it is quite obvious that it is impossible to appoint any one Minister of Planning to deal with what I have described as the "Better Britain" Policy.
That planning is the task, and I should suppose the main task, of the Government themselves in the post-war period, a task which may be described as the task of national organisation, responsibility for which, of course, must lie with the Cabinet itself. It may, of course, be found convenient, when the war is successfully over, that the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, or some Minister of that rank and status, should preside over a Committee of the Cabinet to consider matters of national organisation, just as at the present time I am presiding over the Committee of Ministers whose task it is to think out the broad approach to reconstruction matters leading to better national organisation. We feel, and I think the House will agree, it seems obvious, that one of the members of any such Ministerial Committee should be the Minister who is charged with the duties relating to town and country planning. It is for that reason that we have adopted the title of Minister of Town and Country Planning, to indicate that the function of the Minister is to concern himself with the administration of the Town and Country Planning Act, or any Amendment of it that may be hereafter contemplated, and show that we do not mean him to be responsible, save as a member of the whole Ministerial Committee, for dealing with matters of national organisation which obviously are beyond the powers or capacity of any one individual.
I hope that in due course the new Minister will bring in a Bill to amend the Act of 1932 dealing with town and country planning. There are certain respects in which that Act needs amendment. For

instance, the giving of very much enlarged powers to local authorities in order that they may buy large areas and plan them as a whole is obviously necessary. The recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee, in so far as we accept them, may, of course, involve further substantial amendments and modifications of that Act. But I conceive that if I were to say more about that matter I should bring myself within the rules of Order because this is not the time nor the occasion, as I conceive it, to discuss powers. The powers will be the subject of some future Bill which I hope will be introduced shortly. This is a Bill dealing only with essential machinery and all that we are purporting to do is to transfer existing powers, whatever they may be, from the Minister of Works and Planning to the new Minister of Town and Country Planning in order that he may devote his whole time and attention to this task. For the last few weeks I have deliberately not pressed forward the consideration of any amendments of powers. I thought it right to keep that back in order that we might have the sage advice and wisdom of the Minister-designate and just at the moment when we are hoisting him into the saddle to start his triumphant gallop it would be unfortunate, if, before he was there, we were to come to definite conclusions as to precise modifications or alterations of existing powers. This obviously is a matter which will be a first charge on his time and attention.
Now I want to say something about Clause 8. The other Clauses are really formal and consequential. Under Clause 8 (2) before we utilise the powers of the Clause we require to have an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, but none the less, local authorities have written to me and expressed some anxiety because they have felt—and I sympathise with them—that they do not want to be deprived of their right of approach to a Minister of the Crown, on whom they can exert proper Parliamentary pressure and to be told that they are to deal with a Commission. I have pointed out to them that that is not the intention and I do not think it is the effect of the language used, but in order to make the position quite plain I have agreed with their representatives on a form of amendment which I think satisfies them completely. I do not want to


discuss this as a mere lawyer. It is so long since I ceased to be a lawyer that my law has become very rusty. But I should suppose it cannot be doubted that you cannot, by executive action, interfere with an Act of Parliament, unless, of course, you are given express power so to do.
For instance, in Clause 6 (2) we are transferring to the Minister certain powers arising under private Acts. Under Subsection (3) we provide that incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions may be made. Otherwise you cannot interfere with an existing act. But in Clause 8 there is no corresponding power at all. It is clear that you cannot by an Order in Council interfere with or alter or modify in any way powers existing under Acts of Parliament, and the powers of local authorities under Acts of Parliament exist, of course, by virtue of the Statute. If it is decided to alter or modify the powers of local authorities it must be done in a subsequent Bill. It cannot be done by appointing a Commission. You cannot deprive local authorities of their powers by appointing a Commission. All that I pointed out to the Associations of local authorities, but they were anxious about the matter, and although I think it really unnecessary I have suggested and they have agreed, that we should alter the Clause in this way—in the second line to leave out the words:
exercising under the direction of the Minister
and to substitute:
assisting the Minister in the exercise of his functions.
The opening three lines of the Clause will then read:
If it appears to His Majesty to be expedient to establish any Commission for the purpose of assisting the Minister in the exercise of his functions.
That, I am glad to say, has satisfied the very experienced representatives of the local authorities that we are dealing only with the functions of the Minister and are in no way diminishing the functions, rights and duties of local authorities. I have been informed by one of them, who I think speaks for all, that he is satisfied and that the misgiving that he had previously felt had now been overcome and I am very glad that that should be so.

Sir Harold Webbe: Will it still be possible for the Minister to transfer to this Commission

executive authority which is conferred on him by Statute?

Sir W. Jowitt: No. The functions that we have in mind for the Commission will be either advisory functions—advising the Minister—or else if it is considered convenient to adopt the Uthwatt scheme, managerial functions. That is to say if it is decided that when land is to be developed the land should be bought by or on behalf of the Crown, and thereafter leased to an individual, then the managerial functions which would be involved in that would be carried out by the Commission. It is those advisory and managerial functions only with which we propose to deal.

Mr. Marshall: If a local authority wanted to purchase some of the land for development would they deal with the Commission as such or would they deal direct with the Minister?

Sir W. Jowitt: As the law stands to-day they would have to deal with the Minister, and the Minister could not shuffle off his responsibility to local, authorities by setting up a Commission of this sort. The Commission might advise the Minister how to deal with the local authority, but the local authority has a right to go to the Minister and the Minister, on application, would consider the demands of the local authority. I think that position will remain, but the whole subject of powers will be dealt with in the Powers Bill hereafter. We are now merely transferring existing powers and under the Bill the Minister cannot escape his obligations and local authorities cannot be in any way deprived of their rights. That is the Bill and I hope we shall get it through at the earliest possible moment, for we shall need in this very difficult matter the advice and guidance of my right hon. Friend who has already been indicated as Minister-designate.

Dr. Russell Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman said, I believe, that Commissioners would assist—I am not quite certain of the actual word he used—in, say, recommendations in regard to undeveloped land and so on in the Uthwatt Report. Is that not anticipating too far, as the Uthwatt Report and its machinery has not yet become the law of the land; indeed, it has not even been considered by this House?

Sir W. Jowitt: The object of the Bill is to set up a central machinery. The way in which it will be used will depend on the powers which the House confers on the Minister hereafter.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am not quite sure that in all respects I see eye to eye with my right hon. and learned Friend, for reasons which I will try to explain. There is a background to this discussion and, clearly, the importance of the Bill does not depend upon the Bill itself but on the purpose which it is designed to serve. There, is some history behind this. I will not go back earlier than the beginning of 1941 when I assumed certain responsibilities for the study and consideration of post-war problems. At that time Lord Reith had become Minister of Works and Buildings and had had assigned to him quite definite duties, to assist in preparing for physical reconstruction and town and country planning after the war. On 26th February, 1941, Lord Reith made a statement which expressed the policy of the Government at that time. It assumed that a central planning authority would be required. It was accepted that planning must subserve Government policy on a wide range of questions including the place of agriculture in the national economy, the distribution of industry and the organisation of transport. There was at least two years ago a vision of planning which is far outside the scope of the physical aspect of planning. The Uthwatt Committee had already been appointed to press on with the exploration of certain very urgent and particular aspects of the problem of planning for post-war purposes.
Some five months later, on 17th July, 1941, Lord Reith, following upon the publication of the first report of the Uthwatt Committee, used these words,
The Government accept the Committee's view that all necessary steps towards the working out of a national plan should be taken as soon as possible to secure that local development and re-development may proceed in conformity with national requirements, with the least possible delay after the war; and that as to works or developments sought to be carried out meantime clear guidance should be available whether or not they will be in accord with national interests.
A committee was appointed consisting of Lord Reith as Chairman, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health, who were both vitally involved. They were appointed

to ensure that the administration of the Town and Country Planning Acts and any legislation implementing the recommendations made in the First Report of Uthwatt Committee shall proceed in conformity with long-term planning policy as it is progressively developed.
Almost a year ago, on 11th February last year, I announced to the House the further step to be taken by His Majesty's Government. I said that the town and country planning powers exercised by the Minister of Health in England and Wales were to be transferred to the Minister of Works and Buildings, who was to blossom under a new title of Minister of Works and Planning. He was to be assisted by a committee of senior officials of the various departments concerned, and there were several of them. Obviously, as I pointed out at the time, there would be large questions of major policy which would require ministerial consideration and decision. It was, therefore, decided to set up a committee, under my chairmanship because of my special responsibilities with regard to reconstruction matters, composed of the principal Ministers concerned with one or more aspects of this complicated business of planning. I conceived of that ministerial body, subject, of course, to the War Cabinet when appeal to them was necessary, as a national development authority. I will not repeat what I said then. When I made this statement on behalf of the Government nearly a year ago I said that the Government's intention had been to secure the most appropriate development and use of the land of this country—uses of many different kinds. I went on to explain that the Government believed that
by a procedure of this kind the various activities of the Departments concerned in post-war reconstruction, including the speedy provision of houses for those who need them, the re-development of devastated areas, the clearance of slums, the relief of overcrowding, the provision of all the necessary public services, and the general promotion of rural development in the light of a positive policy for the maintenance of a healthy and well-balanced agriculture can be welded into a single and consistent policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1942; col. 1532, Vol. 377.]
Moreover, I went on to say that the Government undertook to review and consider the objects which have been set out in paragraph 4 of Section 428 of the Barlow Report, namely:

"(a) Continued and further re-development of congested urban areas, where necessary.


(b) Decentralisation or dispersal, both of industries and industrial population, from congested areas.
(c) Encouragement of a seasonable balance of industrial developments, so far as possible, throughout the various divisions or regions of Great Britain, coupled with the appropriate diversification of industry in each division or region throughout the country."
Since the publication of the Barlow Report in January, 1940, we have had two important footnotes in the reports of the Uthwatt and Scott Committees which, of course, must be taken seriously into account. Although they may to some extent traverse different territory they do tread much common territory, although in their conclusion they do not see eye to eye on all matters. No two or three committees ever could. At least these committees were agreed on the need for the national development and organisation of our resources in the national interest. Before either the Uthwatt or the Scott Committees were appointed, and, therefore, long before they reported, I had come to the broad conclusion that we must have a national development authority, as I have already explained. Indeed, as I have shown, the Government were committed to that in principle less than a year ago. The final report of the Uthwatt Committee, published in September last year, realised this problem of organisation. I do not agree with them in all their details, but I would like to quote their general views because in broad principle I accept them:
We have stated our assumptions that planning is intended to be a reality and a permanent feature of the administration of the internal affairs of the country, and that the system of planning assumed is one of national planning with a high degree of initiation and control by the Central Planning Authority, which will have national as well as local considerations in mind, and that such control will be based on organised research into the social and economic life of the country and be directed to securing the use and development of land to the best advantage. We have further stated that the Central Planning Authorities we have in mind is an organisation which does not yet exist and that 'planning' has a meaning not attached to it in any legislation nor, until recently, in the minds of the public. Put shortly, National Development is added to planning. We propose in this chapter to use the term National Development
—which is what I had in my mind for over two years. The report continues:
In our view it would be a mistake if there were created a Government department concerned with national development which would

rank with existing Government departments. What is wanted is thought at the centre and informed vision, unified control of land, use and co-ordination between the existing departments. We think that this can only be secured if there is set up a minister—we call him the Minister for National Development—who should be specially charged with national development. He should have no departmental cares but he should have the advantage of a highly qualified staff informed as to the economic conditions and needs of the country, competent to put forward proposals for consideration and to advise on economic and other questions…arising out of schemes for development.
In other words, this technical committee, the Uthwatt Committee, was set up for a particular technical purpose, and having considered the ramifications of the subject came down to the view which the Government held more than a year ago.
The point I wish to stress is that comprehensive and orderly planning and development travels far beyond the range of any single Department. It would, indeed, in normal times had this been undertaken before the war, have been a primary responsibility of the Cabinet, using perhaps weeks and months of Cabinet time. In present conditions what I call the national development authority—which, as I have tried to prove, is what in fact a central planning authority really is, must be the responsibility of some kind of Home Front Cabinet composed of the senior Ministers whose Departments are concerned, because those Departments will in one way or another have heavy responsibilities to bear. They must take a hand according to their functions in caring for the development of our native resources with all that that implies—docks, harbours, transport facilities, all the varied activities of our industrial life and the development of new industries and the satisfaction of human needs. These include water, gas, electricity supply, roads and other forms of transport, houses and community life, and all that community life involves in the way of schools, clinics, hospitals, cinemas, theatres, and shopping centres. We must face the hard task that if the human problems which I have outlined are to be faced boldly and with a single eye to the national well-being, many awkward stiles will have to be negotiated. Even Ministers have not been known to disagree on questions, and a large group of Ministers responsible for the administration of a number of Departments concerned in one way or another


with the development and the proper use of land and natural resources might well be expected to suffer from a number of bad headaches.
I think the House will agree that this enormous task cannot rest primarily with one Minister, however gifted he may be and however experienced in the wide range of questions involved. This is a matter for team work by a body of Ministers in shaping the general policy, and then for team work by a group of responsible civil servants, representatives of the Ministers concerned, in applying the general principles and policies and clothing them with the necessary administrative action. This is where I think that my right hon. Friend and I perhaps do not march altogether along the same road. Although he has, in a sense, implied what is my view, I think other functions require to be fulfilled by the new Minister. A single Minister might well supervise the operational plans which should flow from the Government. That is a task of considerable magnitude. I always envisaged—I say this without wishing to be in any way derogatory—that there would be a sort of super-Clerk of Works, who would see that the Government's policy was carried into effect. If that is to be the duty of my right hon. Friend, well and good; but he must be a little more than that. I gather from my right hon. and learned Friend that he would be associated with what I call the team of Ministers, with the sort of committee over which I would have presided had I been so unlucky as to continue in office—that he would have been a member of that team. His duties would have been partly constructive, in the sense that he could make his contributions, and then would fall upon him the heavy task of carrying out the policies and plans which were accepted.
The main burden of my speech is this. I cannot over-emphasise what I think Government inquiries and enlightened public opinion, as expressed through many different channels, have undoubtedly proved, namely the complexity of the issues involved, and the paramount importance of collective responsibility for policy by the Ministers whose Departments will have to take a hand in carrying the plans into effect. You cannot make a super-Department which will take the life-blood of the Ministry of

Agriculture, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, and so on. The major tasks of administration must rest with those Departments, although there may be minor changes. I will make a further point of considerable substance. It is vital that plans for national development shall be completed without delay. I am not saying that they must be carried into operation, but the back of the job of national development for a quarter, or a half, or three-quarters of a century must be broken quickly; otherwise old and un-desired things will set like concrete, and the new ideas which are surging through almost every industry in this country, through those interested in transport and through those interested in housing, will be strangled before they have any opportunity for adequate expression.
Early in 1941 I thought that the task in its main features was a five years' task. One has to put a target on a programme, and that seemed to me to be the time which would be required if we were to have the many, complex plans agreed for early operation after the armistice. Two years have passed; three years remain. Early in 1940 the tempo of reconstruction was inevitably slow. People were not much interested; and I am not blaming them. But now, in 1943, when we are well into the fourth year of the war, that tempo, as everybody now recognises on all sides of the House, has increased; and we are two years nearer the end of the war than we were in 1941. But I do not believe we can begin to count the five years from now. It will not satisfy people in this country, in all professions, in all avocations of life, in all classes of society, who have set their hopes on seeing a better use of Britain's land and natural resources and the preservation of amenities, to be told one day, "Alas, the end of the war has come too soon, and adequate steps have not been taken." There are those who say that many of our problems cannot, by their very nature, be tackled until the five years end. I do not necessarily agree with that view, though in the case of many problems it is at least an arguable thing. But, however that may be, plans for our own internal development lie chiefly with us; though I would add that if we failed to secure that measure of international economic co-operation which is essential our hopes might be


hampered and the complete fulfilment of the scheme delayed. This Bill, I hope, may be taken as an earnest that those considerations are fully in the mind of the Government. Otherwise, the Bill is valueless. It was described to me last Thursday by the Leader of the House as being a machinery Bill. I am not against machinery Bills, but everything depends on the kind and the strength of the motive force behind the machine.
I had hoped that my right hon. and learned Friend would have said rather more than he has done about what I think is the essential background to a judgment on the purposes and the wisdom of this Bill. I am not against the appointment of a Minister of Town and Country Planning—by no means—but whether this appointment is to be effective or not, depends really on major Government decisions as to policy. My right hon. and learned Friend talked about improvement on original ideas. I cannot be expected to go into all that, but I will express my own attitude on these questions. We are told that if this planning is to be a reality it will require the whole time of a front-rank Minister. It depends upon the functions we are thinking of. If we are thinking in terms of a Minister actively associated with the shaping of policy, and at the same time being a taskmaster who sees that the policy is carried out, that is one thing; but if it means somebody who is going to take supreme charge of all these questions, I fear this plan is doomed to failure. Government Departments are kittle cattle. They do not like new Departments. The older the Department, the greater is its pride in its history. I should tremble to think what my right hon. Friend's life would be like if he were to take this magnificent sweep of duties and responsibilities into his own hands, and to fight, one by one—which is the worst way—or altogether, the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland—I have no doubt he would have ideas about the matter—and a number of other Ministers.
It has been said that the new Minister must be, and must appear to be, entirely impartial as to the use of land. It seems to me that we are falling into confusion. This question of the use of land is a complicated problem, which would involve a large number of Departments. With all

respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not see that he is going to be the arbiter as to the use of any particular land in a given area. This has to be settled on lines of general policy by agreement between the Departments. I know from my own experience, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows from his, that a Minister of Health has to deal with town and country planning schemes of various kinds, in which half a dozen Departments may be involved. They do not have a lot of rows. The Minister rarely hears about the difficulties; he hears about them only if some Minister has got on his hind legs and said that he is not going to have it at any price. But co-operation in such cases between Ministers and civil servants will be vital to the future of the State. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be charged with this terrible responsibility of being entirely impartial as to the use of land. His right hon. Friend who is now sitting next to him is not in the least bit impartial.
An explanation of what the Bill is was given to us by the Minister Without Portfolio. He used the language of divorce, with which I am not familiar. To put the matter in simple and Biblical language, what has happened is that the Ministry of Works and Planning has been cut in two. What was the Ministry of Works and Buildings and then the Ministry of Works and Planning now becomes the Ministry of Works. Planning becomes the primary function of the new Department, which takes over the existing town and country planning powers of the Minister of Health in regard to England and Wales. A new power is given in Clause 8 of the Bill, and it has created a certain consternation in the minds of hon. Members, and certainly in the minds of representative people who can speak for local government authorities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained what he proposes for meeting their case. I would like to know a little more about Clause 8. I am not opposed in principle to the proposal, but I can see a rather sticky time coming for the Government unless they watch their step on this matter.
It is impossible in two days' Debate to give these things adequate consideration, but I hope, before the first draft Order in Council is submitted to Parliament, that the Government will give an


opportunity for the House to express itself on the principles lying behind Clause 8. It is all very well for the Government to say that we get only a draft Order in Council which can be debated and voted upon, but the first draft Order in Council will be carried by this House and will set a precedent and establish a policy which hereafter will never be successfully challenged. Therefore I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts it to the Leader of the House that when the Government contemplate their first draft Order in Council the House, unshackled by what the Government are going to do, should have an opportunity for a full and free discussion.
That brings me to one or two other aspects of the use of Orders in Council proposed in the Bill. There are some quite necessary amendments set out in Clause 6 (1). Then Clause 6 (2) says:
If it appears to His Majesty to be expedient that any other functions relating to the use and development of land in England and Wales exercisable by any Minister of the Crown under any enactment should be exercised by the Minister, His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer those functions to the Minister.
This illustrates my plea for far fuller knowledge. There should not be postponement of the discussion until we have the powers Bill suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend, but it is important that we should understand the major organisation for national development and its purpose. The major functions to be transferred ought by this time to have been brought out and included in the Bill. Clause 6 (3) gives power to modify or adapt any enactment, order, regulation and so on. I realise that much of the Bill is common form, but I have a suspicion that I have been guilty, as far as regards modifying and adapting enactments, of asking for such powers myself in the past, so I naturally would not wish to make very heavy weather about it, especially in war-time. It may well be, in this altering of enactments, that the Government may find themselves facing a spot of bother at some later date. I hope so, because the more we thresh out these problems and understand all the underlying implications of policy on which we are embarking, the better it will be for the House and the country.
The Minister-Designate, who is sitting opposite me, has my good wishes in his

work in this vast and largely uncharted sea. I hope what I believe large numbers of Members of this House will hope, and what I am certain very large numbers of people in the country hope, that this ancient land—because this is really what is behind the policy—shall be worthy of its people, its soil, its science, its organisation, its administrative ability and its skill. If we can rid Britain of the cancers and eyesores of the past, if we can obliterate the scars of the war in our blitzed towns and villages and replace those losses with symbols of dignity, efficiency and human service, and if we can make the best use of that with which Providence has blessed us, the people of our land will be proud indeed of the sacrifices they have made and are making for it. That is the solemn duty of my right hon. Friends, and I hope they will pursue it with an acute sense of urgency and determination.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a very fair case for a larger conception of planning, and I largely agree with it. As to the establishment of a Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and his suggestion that the Government should have a larger planning approach, the Minister without Portfolio said in introducing the Bill that the business of the Deputy Prime Minister in peace-time is to take responsibility for the larger aspects of reconstruction and planning.
I therefore think it is exceedingly difficult to ask for any more than a general approval to the setting-up of a Minister of Town and Country Planning when we do not know what is the intention of the Government with regard to the powers he is to be given. We may give the Bill a general blessing, and we do. It is a better arrangement, I think, than the previous planning, but there are, as in Clause 8, difficulties which arise simply because we do not know what the Government's intentions are in the policy which the Minister is to adopt. The Minister without Portfolio tells us that Clause 8 is there because it is likely that the main recommendation of the Uthwatt Report is to be accepted. It is awfully difficult—well, the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but that was the only explanation the Minister gave to somebody who asked him a question as to the object of the Clause. (Hon. Members: "No.") Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary or


some other Minister will explain later. The Uthwatt Report made a recommendation with regard to the taking-over of the betterment value, nationalising betterment value, if you like. If that is not the intention, then why a Commission? Ministers are ordinarily supplied by the Civil Service with a staff. Why call it a Commission? What is the difference between what it is proposed the Minister of Town and Country Planning is to have and his ordinary staff? Is this to some extent a compromise with the proposal that the planning authority should be a Commission without a Minister? I should like to have guidance on that point.
Apart from that, it seems to me that there is real urgency for the Government to make up their mind on recommendations that have been made in the Uthwatt and Scott Reports, and on the powers which the Minister shall have. Everyone agrees that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, needs very greatly, strengthening, or, to take another example, that the Ribbon Development Act has been of very little value at all. There are at any rate similar problems of that sort, and I do not understand how the Minister is to do useful work until his powers have been defined, and it appears to me that we are only giving authority now to consider what he should do. I hope it will not take him so very long, with the rest of the Government, to make up their minds as to what powers they want and, at any rate, to give us in the House of Commons an opportunity of debating the matter with something concrete before us.
There will be, apart from the general question of planning, tremendous pressure, directly the war comes to an end, to build houses. There is great pressure at the present time for houses, and unless general principles of planning are decided, unless it is decided that the recommendations of the Uthwatt Report on land nationalisation is the right policy, or some other scheme which may be suggested, I do not see how the Minister can prepare against the time when there will be this enormous pressure from public opinion to put up houses urgently. It may be desirable to build a good many temporary houses, but they must be temporary. I know of houses in my constituency which are still occupied, which were "temporary" after the last war, and which are

slums and a disgrace to the whole district. On the other hand, it may not be possible immediately after the war to build the sort of houses that we want to see, or not sufficient of them. I hope that we shall aim pretty high in the type of house we build, and that we shall not be content with an indifferent house.
I think there is a case for making use of temporary housing, provided it is made abundantly clear that it is only to be temporary. I hope we shall aim high, and if I might suggest the sort of general principles which I feel are of importance, I would say that in rebuilding our towns we should definitely aim at a very much higher standard than in the past, a higher standard of actual housing, a higher standard of beauty and amenities. Everybody seems to take it for granted that a town must be a hideous place, though actually most people prefer to live there. I do not see why the towns of England should be dreary wastes of bricks and mortar, which so many of the North of England towns, at any rate, are. That reflects also on our attitude to the countryside, because, as a town is regarded as an ill-looking erection, we try to preserve the countryside in a very negative way.
Our planning seems to me to involve a negative side and a positive side. I am all for giving the new Minister all the powers he needs for the necessary side of planning which is negative—the power of stopping people doing what they might do in an ill-considered way. Both our towns and countryside might be very much better than they are from the point of view of building. I want to stop ribbon development and bungaloid growth in the countryside. I want to stop the acres of council-housing type of development round the outskirts of the big towns, and to replace that with satellite towns with more varied building, and so on. I wish people did not dislike living in flats, which it appears that they do. On the positive side, especially as it affects country districts, I do not very much welcome the tone of the part of the Scott Report which suggests what is needed to preserve agriculture and the rural atmosphere of the countryside. It is not that I do not hate the spoliation of the country which has gone on. If we are negative and try to separate the country and keep it static, we shall fail. The thing which really matters about the countryside is the well-being of


the people who live there. I am one who believes that the future of the agricultural industry will not be a static future, but that it will have great possibilities. Are we to plan on the basis that agricultural work and living in the country are going to be as well paid as work in town? That is a point upon which undoubtedly the new Minister will have to be in contact with the Minister of Agriculture. I hope it will be so. I do not believe we shall get satisfactory planning in rural and semi-rural districts unless it is possible for the agricultural workers and those who live by agriculture to pay the same rate for houses that the town workers pay. I want the country to have as good amenities, as good housing and as good services as the towns, and I want industries in the country too.
No doubt the special areas before the war and those areas which may be special areas after this war ought to have the first call upon industries, but I cannot agree with the recommendation of the Scott Committee that industry should be excluded from country districts. I have lived in the country, as country people do, as much as and more perhaps than any Member of this House, and I do not think that a small town with a few thousand inhabitants is really a very cheerful place. It consists very often, in the North of England, of 2,000 or 3,000 people, with a considerable proportion of the population unemployed for large parts of the year, and it is really cut off from the country districts surrounding it. I hope that these country towns will have industries and that the Minister of Planning will plan on the assumption that they will have small industries made possible by electrification or other means of power.
My last word would be to welcome the new Minister—we all wish him well—and to urge him to hurry on and get the Government to decide what their powers are to be and to give the House an opportunity of a full discussion. The matter is urgent from every point of view. The country is expecting something to be done, and people are thinking about these problems now. There is not any too much time, and greater clarity should be given to the position.

Mr. Willink: Like my right hon. hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and my hon.

Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), I find no substantial grounds for criticising what is in this Bill. As far as it goes, I am happy to support it, but it does not go very far. Unless I misunderstood the Minister without Portfolio, and unless I misunderstand the Bill, it is difficult to find anything of substance on anything beyond machinery. The House will recall that all that we have had over a series of Bills and indeed, a series of years, is a succession of machinery Bills, changing the names of Departments, cutting them in two and so forth. I hope that before this Debate is over we may have something more in the nature of an assurance as to future procedure in matters of substance.
There are two points I would raise on the Bill, and the first of them arises under Clause 1, the language of which I find obscure and somewhat unsatisfactory. In this Clause—and I would like to congratulate my right hon. and learned friend on the introduction of a Bill which enables his appointment to become effective—one finds the duty of the new Minister described as
securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy.
Consistency and continuity are two great qualities, but in this setting the words are somewhat chilly. Are they intended to imply that purposeful, positive action which appears to most of us to be essential in this matter of town and country planning, or do they connote the continuance of a Governmental policy which is merely regulating and restrictive? We are told that those quantities are to be secured in the framing of a national policy. Who will frame this policy? If it is to be the Cabinet as a whole, is my right hon. and learned Friend really undertaking the duty of securing that all his colleagues attain consistency? If so, he is taking on a heavy task. If not, may we at least be told who is to frame the policy? I do not believe it is the new Minister. He has only to secure consistency in the framing of the policy. What is much more important is this: Is the national policy to which reference is made in this Clause being framed at all? That is a matter on which there is extraordinarily little evidence. May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio of one or two things he said about six weeks ago. He said:


If we are to get right down to it and to avoid delays, much preparatory work must be done before the war ends, such as the acquisition and surveying of sites and the preparation of lay-out plans.
These lay-out plans are being prepared by the planning authorities. Are they being prepared on the higher level on the scale of national policy? That is what some of us feel bound to doubt. I would remind him too that six weeks ago he could only say that
he would not be prepared to say anything at this stage which might bind this Government or future Governments to final acceptance of the Committee's view that this correlation could best be carried out by a Committee of Ministers presided over by a senior Minister.
When is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to be in a position to give the information as to the instrument which, I assume, is to frame this national policy, the consistency and continuity of which is to be the function of the new Minister of Town and Country Planning? There is a third passage in that speech. The new Minister was referred to as
having as his main function in association with the Departments concerned, to ensure that the translation of the agreed national policy into terms of land use and physical development is conceived as a single and consistent whole.
The whole of this structure depends upon one essential condition—the framing of a national policy. One must emphasise that the time is overdue for a clearer pronouncement about the plans it has been decided to make, and on many of the main matters which must be decided in relation to such plans.
I am not one of those who believe that planning is a panacea. There is a lot of very queer stuff written about it. When I read in one of the many publications of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) that once emergency jobs are over he hopes that we shall choose the complete re-siting of our towns, I wonder whether he thinks before he writes. When I hear an apostle of planning saying at the Royal Institute of British Architects that the population of London cannot live decently until it has been reduced by more than 50 per cent. and that nobody can live decently unless his windows are at least 70 feet away from those of his neighbours, I become frightened of the professional planner. When I see an exhibition at the Royal

Academy at which it is thought worth while to represent Broadcasting House as having been destroyed and a square building substituted in its place, I feel that I am living in a world of fantasy.
But in spite of this there are certain basic facts upon which I think we are all agreed and which we agree are relevant. We must remember that our country is the most densely populated country in the world and that the destruction of its beauty in the years between the wars was quite appalling. With modern methods of production and under the pressure of the problems of re-settlement there is grave risk of even greater misuse of our land than occurred after the last war.
I would urge upon my right hon. Friend that the framing of a national policy is urgent. It must be decided by this Coalition Government. There must of course be compromise. But there are political problems of the most fundamental nature. I will mention only two. There is the extent to which our countryside and our agricultural land is to be preserved—and this must be most controversial and difficult—and there are the basis and density of the planning of the destroyed and obsolete parts of our cities. It is no use local authorities planning until matters of this kind have been decided by the Government. I hope that when the Minister without Portfolio replies to this Debate he will be able to give clearer assurances with regard to the spirit of urgency in which the Government are approaching these main problems.
My second point is one on which I feel strongly and which I hope will appeal to Members of all parties. It is related to Clause 1 and Clause 8, and I may say with regard to Clause 8 that I entirely agree with the view put forward that even in its original form it would not have enabled or allowed the withdrawal of any existing statutory powers. Following the suggestion to the effect that Commissions were unnecessary, I feel strongly that in this matter of planning the Minister may well desire the assistance of persons with qualifications other than the excellent qualifications of civil servants. It is a matter upon which the advice of technical people and architects, those outside the Civil Service world, may be most desirable. But does this Bill even hint at the problems which arise in the case of such areas as Tyneside or Merseyside, with


their multiplicity of planning authorities in an area which is quite obviously one for unified and harmonious planning, or in the supremely more important area of Greater London? I can see nothing in the Commission Clause which is related to this question. Are the Government undertaking to deal with this question at an early date?
Let me consider for a moment the position of this great Metropolitan area, with which I have been closely associated during the last two or three years. One out of every five of our people lives in it. It contains within its borders at least 10 planning authorities and at least go other local authorities, all closely concerned and deeply interested. Who is framing the policy for the capital of the British Commonwealth of Nations? What do we know about it? All we know is that the London County Council, as the planning authority for the administrative county of London, less the City of London, has employed Mr. Patrick Abercrombie, for whose gifts I have every respect, to advise them on an outline plan. That outline plan is expected to be ready by September of this year, but it will have no status or force when it is received. Other authorities in the London area, I believe, have been induced to employ Mr. Abercrombie, but for whom is Mr. Abercrombie making his report? Is it for the Government, or is it for the planning authorities? If it is for the planning authorities, one cannot be honest if one does not say one knows that in many cases they are mutually suspicious and antagonistic.
What have we been told by the Parliamentary Secretary? He was asked on 16th December whether it was the intention of the Government to make the observance of Mr. Abercrombie's plan obligatory upon local authorities. He answered that he would rather not deal with such a question before his Noble Friend received the report and that as soon as it was received it would be communicated to all the authorities concerned. So we have to wait until September, 1943, before we have any indication as to the effect of Mr. Abercrombie's report, if, indeed, it is made by then. It may take longer. The planning of London is not a matter of which either the first or last word ought to be with any local authority or group of local authorities, however

ancient and however responsible. It is a matter of national, even Imperial, concern, and I make so bold as to say that I cannot see how it can be done effectively and expeditiously unless agreement is reached among the local authorities in the Metropolitan area and unless the Minister himself undertakes, with the assistance of whatever organs Parliament decides, that the planning of Greater London shall be a national matter.

Sir Percy Harris: Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that the local authorities should be associated with the area for which they are responsible in any planning? Does my hon. and learned Friend suggest that the planning should be done entirely by a national authority?

Mr. Willink: The right hon. Baronet will have noticed I said that neither the first nor the last word should be with any local authority or group of local authorities. The general outline of the capital city of the Empire should be a matter for the national Government. The working out of that outline should be entrusted to the local authorities, but the final control should be also with the national Government in case difficulties arise in working out the plan, difficulties concerning consistency or lack of consistency, continuity or lack of continuity, to use the phrases of the Bill. It is, to my mind, fantastic that this great area should be the sport of local antagonisms and prejudices, and we know that has been the position with regard to planning in the Metropolitan area up to now. In saying what I have said, I am making no attack upon the London County Council. I say exactly the same thing with regard to the Corporation of the City of London. The City of London is not the private property of the City Corporation. It is a matter of supreme concern to the whole nation. I am told that at the moment the City Corporation is developing a plan for the City without the assistance of any consultant of any kind, and nobody can find out the direction in which that plan is going. But when one turns to the London County Council, surely it cannot be appropriate that the London County Council should have the final word with regard to the lay-out of the City of Westminster or the lay-out of the devastated East End boroughs, one of which the hon.


Baronet opposite represents. The problems are political in the highest degree. The same sort of problems arise with regard to Greater London as arise with regard to the country as a whole. How much country around London is to be engulfed? Is the London County Council to decide what is to be the future population of the administrative county, or is the Government to decide? In my submission, major matters of that sort are matters of national policy. So far as I can make out, at the moment the London County Council and Mr. Patrick Abercrombie are deciding on these questions with no lead from the Government.

Earl Winterton: I agree with practically everything the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but may I ask him a question? I hope he does not suggest that the Government or any other authority shall adopt the appalling totalitarian principle of saying that there shall not be more than a certain population in a certain area. That is Fascism in excelsis.

Mr. Willink: I entirely agree with the Noble Lord. The sort of thing I have in mind is this. Obviously, there will be very difficult questions as to the density at which the East End boroughs are to be rebuilt. Obviously, there will be very difficult questions as to the extent of the good agricultural land which the London County Council, the West Ham Borough Council or the East Ham Borough Council will acquire in Essex or other surrounding counties. My submission is that those are not matters which should be left to local authorities. They are matters on which central direction should be given. I would ask my right hon and learned Friend, in his reply, to indicate, and to give the House an assurance, that decisions are to be taken upon those matters at an early date.

Mr. Richards: I think the general opinion of the House is that the Bill is, perhaps, disappointing. As was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), it is disappointing not because of what it includes, but because of its very serious omissions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has done a very useful service in recalling to us the basis upon which the Bill has been built up. It has been pointed out that the Bill is a simple piece of machinery.

I think the House is getting rather tired of successive pieces of machinery, concerning, at one moment, the Minister of Works and Planning and now the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and does not feel that any really hard work is being done in this respect. I think that all hon. Members will welcome the fact that the Ministry of Works and Planning is being bisected in this way. I entirely agree with the Minister without Portfolio that the conglomerate that was known as the Ministry of Works and Planning made any effective planning almost an impossibility. Consequently, we welcome the Bill in so far as it cuts off those extraneous duties of the Ministry of Works and Planning, so that in future the Minister of Town and Country Planning will be able to concentrate his attention exclusively upon the very difficult question of planning.
But I think we all feel, as the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon said, that there is an extraordinarily difficult fence which the Minister must attempt to negotiate in some way. It applies not merely to the Greater London area, but perhaps more to some of the smaller rural authorities. We may plan as much as we like and in as detailed a manner as we like, but who is to carry out the work when it comes to executive action? In the country districts, much more than in the rich London area, they are up against this difficulty. There are, for instance, on the Statute Book Acts concerning housing. I know of a comparatively wealthy rural district in an English county where not a single house of any sort has been put up by the authority. These rural authorities are very apprehensive about any possible changes that may take place in future. Naturally they are very proud, just as the London Metropolitan boroughs are, of the authority which they enjoy. Before there can be applied to the whole country a system of planning, something quite definite will have to be decided about the future of local government. I know I should be out of Order if I entered upon that very difficult territory, but it seems to me that the first question that will face the new Minister will be that of who is to carry out this kind of work.
As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, there have been at any rate three most valuable Reports dealing with certain aspects of these questions. There is, first, the Report


of the Barlow Commission, which I think is fundamental. We may have very different views about the future of this country, whether it is to keep up its industrial traditions and possibly expand in that direction, or whether it is to concentrate more on agriculture; but at any rate, the question of the location of industry, which has been allowed to develop very much in its own way, is a fundamental one with regard to planning. Secondly, there is the Report of the Uthwatt Committee, which dealt with a highly technical question. Even in that Report I find that the suggestion is made that the decision as to what constitutes the difference between the town and the country will have to be settled by a National Planning Commission. There is no reference in the Bill, except for a vague one towards the end, to the setting up of what I regard as a fundamental Commission. I take it that the Commissions referred to in the body of the Bill will enable the Minister to set up subsidiary Commissions which will be carrying out the work on which he is intent. But I take it the suggestion of the Uthwatt Committee is that there should be a national planning authority which should decide primary questions of policy. That, of course, would be in consultation with the Minister himself.
Then there is the question of the Scott Report, which is very interesting from this point of view. I do not know of any other case in the history of reports which have been issued for the benefit of the House where a minority Report written by a single individual faces the problem in a much more fundamental fashion than do the majority. In this case I think the Scott Committee has been merely content to say it requires a certain kind of agriculture, and, if you analyse it, it simply means the perpetuation to a great extent of the present system of agriculture. These are fundamental questions. I should be very interested to hear the Minister, when he replies, say that behind this very simple piece of machinery some real work is being done on these fundamental questions, because, if we cannot get over these difficulties, we may in a very short time have another Bill dealing with planning. I think the House is tired of the machinery of planning and wants to get to grips with the difficult questions that lie behind it. I am sure they will thwart the

activity of the new Minister, just as they thwarted the activity of the old Minister, and consequently I hope that no time will be lost in proceeding with the more fundamental issues which this simple Bill really postpones.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I agree with the hon. Member that the House is getting a little tired of these machinery Bills. One hoped that much greater progress had been made. I remember my colleague in the representation of Norwich last spring stating that the Ministry contemplated in the then Planning Bill was to be a permanent institution. Permanence in politics is a relative term, but it shows how careful one must be, even one so meticulous in his choice of English as my hon. Friend. I give this Bill a qualified and tentative approval. Perhaps approval is too strong a word. I would rather say reluctant acquiescence.
Just as I thought it wrong to take away the planning powers of the Ministry of Health, I think it duplicating machinery to take the planning powers away from the Minister of Works and Planning and give them to a new Minister. My conception is that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has such great knowledge of these matters, should be made an Under-Secretary under the Minister of Health and should be in charge of the planning department of the Ministry of Health. It is going to complicate procedure and slow down development if local authorities for their planning powers have to go to one Minister and for their housing and development powers have to go to another. I am exceedingly doubtful about setting up new Government Departments, The trouble about setting up a new Ministry of Planning is that, if you have a new Minister and a new body of officers, questions of doctrine get elevated into dogmas and, by means of regulations, become static, and, so far from speeding up development, there are further delays and obstacles in the process of development. That is just what we want to avoid. Therefore I am a little apprehensive as to what will happen. Although the questions which will fall to the new Minister to determine are all important, I am sure that in the post-war Britain a primary consideration will be the creation of conditions under which an end can be put to bad housing conditions and every citizen


can find a home in a good modern house at a reasonable rent with as little delay as possible, and no other consideration, architectural or aesthetic, will count at all against that primary necessity. It should not be necessary to set up a new Ministry to see that beautiful houses are built.

Earl Winterton: Has the hon. Baronet seen the hideous buildings that have been put up by some local authorities? They have no more sense of beauty than the man in the moon.

Sir G. Shakespeare: The point I am making is that it should not be necessary to set up a new Ministry and that it should be possible by the exercise of common sense to frame a Bill which can deal with this matter. It was not necessary to set up a new Ministry to deal with jerry building. The procedure by which certificates can be issued by the National Housebuilders Registration Council could be made compulsory. If local authorities are the offenders more pressure could be brought to bear on them by the compulsory use of a panel of architects in each county or district. You could thus do a lot to improve the standard of houses.

Sir P. Harris: The local authorities will still be responsible to the Ministry of Health and not to the Ministry of Planning in the matter of the building and the design of houses. There will not be any change in that respect.

Sir G. Shakespeare: The old conception of planning is not considered good enough for the future. There must be some point in setting up this Ministry. Surely the point must be that negative planning is wrong and that a more positive method of direction is wanted from Whitehall, showing local authorities what they could do. That I take to be the purpose of this new machinery. Otherwise it has no purpose at all.

Sir W. Jowitt: The purpose of the new machinery is no such thing. It is to transfer from the Ministry of Works and Planning the existing powers in relation to planning that are now in his possession to a new Minister.

Sir G. Shakespeare: But what for? These powers are not being transferred to the new Minister so that he can go away for the rest of his life and do nothing. They are being given to him

so that he can carry out further measures for the physical control of planning. He will have the assistance of a Commission. I am apprehensive about the appointment of that Commission. I was glad to hear that announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend, and I am satisfied that with the Amendment he has accepted the local authorities have everything they want. The Commission is to be an advisory body, but it can also, should the need arise, act as a sort of agency to manage the national estate, although I agree with Lord Latham in another place, who pointed out that this estate depended entirely on whether private landholders wanted to develop here, there or anywhere else, and it will be difficult to administer such a piecemeal, higgledy piggledy estate. Why do the Government want power to appoint more than one Commission? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will answer that.
May I ask whether Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 will enable the new Minister to take over the powers under the Ribbon Development Act? If we are to appoint a new Minister, let us do it properly and give him all the powers now exercised by the Minister of Transport in respect of ribbon development. We are to have a Minister in charge of housing and a new Minister in charge of planning. Who is to control material and labour in future? It seems to me that if we leave the control of labour and material in the hands of a committee or committees in the Office of Works and Buildings, we shall allow them completely to frustrate any plans that either the new Minister or the Minister of Health may have in regard to planning or development. After the war each Department which will be a user of labour and materials ought to make out its case to some Minister who would co-ordinate the indents of various Departments and then get the highest Cabinet sanction for the priorities. During the war the biggest users are the Service Departments. There is no user by the Ministry of Health or the Board of Education, and it is proper that in wartime the Office of Works and Planning should be the appropriate Government Department to allocate priorities.
After the war everything will be changed. I hope that the great bulk of building will be done by private enterprise. The second largest user will be


the local authorities. Neither of these classes is connected with the Government, and after the war the control now vested in a committee of the Ministry of Works and Buildings should pass elsewhere. It should pass to the Minister without Portfolio because he has not a Department. He should be charged with the duty of getting Departments to state what they want in the way of labour and material and of getting Cabinet authority for the priorities and for stating the relative value of housing as against educational premises and so forth. I am sure that the new Minister will be stultified if the Ministry of Works and Buildings is allowed to have a vested interest in any future development.
There is only one thing that eases my apprehension and mitigates my reluctance to accept this Bill. That is the fact that my right hon. Friend the new Minister, the late Postmaster-General, is to be in charge of it. I have always had a high opinion of his qualities. I have always thought that he never had a fair deal in politics. There are at least two Ministers to-day—the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food—who with ample money are building on the foundations laid by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that these Ministers will acknowledge that to a large extent they are building on the foundations that he laid. Before the war anyone who was Minister of Agriculture took his life in his hands and there was never any insurance against funeral expenses.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: That was because of the policy of his Government.

Sir G. Shakespeare: If my right hon. Friend then had one-tenth part of the money that has gone to the present Minister of Agriculture, he would have been there still. I give tentative approval to the new Minister and the new Department, largely because we shall have an experienced administrator in charge of it, a man of common sense who will reconcile all the difficult problems and, I hope, introduce a sense of urgency into them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) that after the war it will be a matter of tremendous urgency when ex-Service men come back. It will be worse than that, because to London alone 1,000,000

evacuees will come back. There will be also the return of the transferred war workers, and we shall have up to 2,000,000 people coming back to London. The public after the war will be very patient because they will realise the difficulties, provided they see re-development swinging ahead at the maximum speed. They will not be patient if they feel that their local authorities or the Government are not doing all that can be done. I am quite sure that the point I made earlier is fundamental—that a man will accept no excuses that stand between himself and the satisfaction of having a good home. That must be the fundamental aim. Having said that, I offer the new Minister all good wishes.

Mr. Silkin: I doubt whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can be altogether pleased with the reception which the Bill has had. That reception is natural, because, as in April of last year, the House is being asked to take a good deal on trust. In April we had a Bill for the purpose of transferring the functions of the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Works and Planning, which was described as a first step to something which, in fact, has never happened; and we are being asked to treat this Bill as another first step. It is natural that, having been, if I may say so, cheated once, we should be rather suspicious on this occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman described this Bill as being merely for the purpose of transferring the functions of the Ministry of Works and Planning to the new Minister of Town and Country Planning. He realises that, if that had been all, it would have been better to have left these functions with the Minister of Health, who understands the business, who has the right kind of personnel available, and who has been doing the work by Statute as well as it can be done. I gather that the purpose of the Bill is not merely to transfer the functions of the Ministry of Works and Planning, but to carry out new functions of planning on a more positive basis, and on a more widespread and national basis. On that assumption, and only on that assumption, I support the Bill. I agree that unless a new Ministry is set up, unless we have a Minister who will give the whole of his time, his thought, and his energy to the problem of town and country planning, we shall get no further than we did before. This presupposes legislation in the near


future, and I hope the House will not be disappointed.
I am sorry that the Minister-Designate is not here, because I proposed to give him a little advice and to tell him some of the problems that he will be faced with. One of his duties is to secure consistency and continuity in policy and in administration. He will have a very difficult task to secure consistency with 750 different planning authorities in England and Wales, each concerned merely to plan its own area in the way which suits its rateable value best. In the Metropolitan traffic area alone there are 133 separate planning authorities, not 10 as has been said. The problem, therefore, is very much greater even than the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates. At present a number of these planning authorities are actually preparing plans for their areas; some have been published, and others will be published in the near future. I hope that the plan for London will be published long before September of this year—I hope it will be published in the spring. Each of these plans has been prepared without any guidance from whichever Ministry was concerned, and many on the assumption that there will be no change in the condition of their areas. If there were no change, planning would hardly be possible. I do not want to say too much about the London plan, which will be made public in the near future, but that plan was prepared at the request of the then Minister of Works and Buildings, Lord Reith, to enable him to ascertain what problems would be faced in carrying out a far-sighted and fairly ambitious scheme. The main purpose will be to give the new Minister an opportunity of judging whether the legislation which he contemplates will enable him to carry out some such plan as is being prepared by Professor Abercrombie. Professor Abercrombie has prepared one plan for us, and another for the outside authorities in the area, in order that both schemes may be linked together, to give the kind of assistance to the new Minister which was intended.

Mr. Willink: Is the hon. Member telling us that Professor Abercrombie had instructions from each planning authority to consider that authority separately, with a view to its own rating position?

Mr. Silkin: No, he has drawn up an abstract plan for the whole area; but if

that plan is to be carried into effect, it will have to be approved and carried out by 133 different authorities. I doubt whether, under existing conditions, that plan will be carried out, because obviously it has to suit the rateable value of every authority in that area. That is the first difficulty that my right hon. Friend will have to face. The second is one which local authorities have been faced with ever since the first Town Planning Act was introduced. That is the liability for compensation. This liability to compensate every owner of property who is injuriously affected is the bugbear of local authorities who have an eye on their rates and rateable values. It requires a very courageous local authority to prepare a planning scheme which will be the best for its area when such a scheme would involve a considerable amount of compensation. My right hon. Friend will have to consider how far he can replan these islands and deal at the same time with this very difficult problem of compensation. I leave that matter there, in case I get into difficulties on questions of Order.
Under existing legislation, local authorities are not in a position, even negatively, to restrict various kinds of undesirable building. I do not want to enlarge on this matter, because it is a technical one, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows that the control over new developments by local authorities is far from adequate to enable them to restrict undesirable development. In many cases where the local authority has taken its courage in its hands and has forbidden development of which it did not approve, the Minister of Health on appeal has reversed the decision of the local authority, and the buildings have gone up.
Another difficulty which stands right in the way of any real and positive development is the high cost of land in central areas. An effect of this is to require that development should take place in the most congested way, regardless of what is proper in that area. Where the cost of land is high, development is always of a very high density without any provision for open spaces. Even though it is not necessary to develop at that density, local authorities feel impelled, because of the high cost of land and the enormous loss involved in the building of working-class


houses, to build at a far greater density than is necessary or proper. While it is not entirely for my right hon. Friend to deal with the high cost of land, but is a matter of Government policy, I would enter the caveat that satisfactory town planning will not be achieved unless the problem of the high cost of land is dealt with.
The other point I want to make is that the existing powers of local authorities merely restrict undesirable development. They cannot ensure that desirable development takes place. I would cite as an example of the disability under which local authorities are suffering one which I cited before but is worth repeating. Some years ago the London County Council obtained Parliamentary powers to acquire a large area on the South bank of the Thames for the purpose of redevelopment. The council were not given any powers to develop that land but merely to purchase the land. The whole of that land has now been purchased, and, but for the war, a good many of the buildings would have been abolished by now. The L.C.C. have no power to put up a single building, but they have to wait until somebody comes who can make a profit out of development and is prepared to comply with the town planning conditions laid down by the council. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. It discourages re-development of the very desirable kind undertaken by the L.C.C.
The only way to develop large areas is for the local authority to undertake the acquisition of the land, but unless they are given positive powers of development and empowered to incur the cost involved and to develop at a profit, development will inevitably suffer. I realise that some such power is proposed to be conferred upon local authorities by the Uthwatt Committee, I submit that even that power does hot go far enough. Under the proposals of that Committee, a local authority will be enabled to carry out development while it involves a loss, but the moment development becomes profitable they cannot carry on, because private enterprise would step in. I hope that the Minister without Portfolio will look at that point because unless the powers are increased there will be a very great handicap to planning.
I understand that the new Minister proposes to consult the various planning authorities with a view to ascertaining from them what amendments of the Town and County Planning Act are required. I think you will find that those amendments are very drastic and numerous and that it will be better to prepare a new Bill. I hope that he will receive those representations in a receptive frame of mind and that we shall get the necessary legislation in the near future, if only to prevent local authorities preparing plans without knowing the intentions of the Government. In the absence of the Minister-Designate I wish him every success in his task. It is a very great task, but I am sure a most interesting and increasing one. To a very large extent the future of this country will depend upon him. I hope that he will have a very successful term of office.

Major Petherick: I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend who introduced this Measure can be at all disturbed at the way in which it has been received. I would like to add a note of caution of a rather more general nature than those which have been expressed. Hardly anybody would not agree that a certain measure of control is necessary, provided it is properly exercised, to prevent the vandalism which has destroyed vast stretches of the countryside during the last 20 years and, indeed, for a great part of the last century, but I hope the measures proposed will be interpreted wisely and well. I was brought up to believe that an Englishman's home is his castle, but there seems to be many people who would like us to believe that an Englishman's home is a Government hostel and that there must be as much interference with the liberty of the subject as the unfortunate subject can swallow without revolution. I wish the Minister-Designate every success in his new job, and the Parliamentary Secretary also. A better choice could hardly have been made, as they are sensible, wise, and cultivated men of the world, but if a couple of planners had been appointed, they would turn the place into a Ministry of Social Enlightment before you can say Israel Moses Sieff.
There is always the danger of a Ministry of this kind falling into the hands of the kind of people who get up in the morning and say, "What can we interfere with next?" I view with considerable alarm


the perpetuation of the word "Planning" in the Title of the Bill. The fact that the present two Members have been chosen as the responsible Ministers does not necessarily mean that the Ministry itself will be a thoroughly sound one, and it certainly does not to my mind justify the creation of a new Department. There is always a tendency, when there is nothing else to do for the Government to set up a new Department to deal with a very narrow aspect of public life. The clamour very often comes from the public, who say, "We must have a new Ministry of Construction," or some other Ministry, and very often the Government rather weakly give in to them. Largely as a result of the war there are already six new Departments. I sincerely hope they will disappear after the war, but when the times comes and the dissolution of these Ministries is being advocated by the public and in Parliament they will fight to the death, many of them, in order to avoid that dissolution. There are few more dangerous animals than a British bureaucrat at bay, particularly a temporary one.
One excuse which is being held out with regard to this Ministry is that the expense will be extremely small, that in fact the existing staff dealing with town and country planning will be taken over, and that it practically amounts to no more than the cost of the salaries of a new Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps a number of Commissions. Why is it necessary to have a new Minister at all? Is this journey really necessary? Why does the existing Ministry of Works not have a section entirely devoted to dealing with town and country planning, instead of having a new Ministry? It may be considered that what I am saying is very reactionary, but I remember that only a year ago—unfortunately I was not here at the time, or I should have had some comment to make—this new Ministry of Works and Planning was set up, and the planners blew their trumpets and hailed it as a step in the right direction. A year later that very same Ministry has been found to be obsolete and rather reactionary, and is to be wiped out and a new Ministry appointed to deal with the same thing. There are in the world—I think they have been the curse of it—a certain type of people who simply love change for its own sake. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was probably the first of them.

Unfortunately, they still exist in large numbers. In extreme cases these unfortunate people put their heads under railway engines because they want to see what the better world is like. In milder cases it takes the form of always asking for a change of some kind, even if that change has not been proved likely to be for the better. It is that type of mind behind this present move.
I cannot see why the Office of Works, as I still prefer to call it, in spite of the fact that its name has been changed, should not continue to carry on its responsibilities for town and country planning which it was given a year ago under a different section, and all the buildings for which it is responsible could be administered under another section. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. baronet the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) in his remarks in which he rather deplored the taking away from the Ministry of Health of its responsibilities for town planning. I am inclined to wonder whether the whole of the housing and planning of town and country should not come under one Ministry, and whether it would not have been better, if it had been intended to take some step of this kind, to put housing as well as town and country planning in the same hands.
I come to my last point, which is the question of the Title, to which I take very strong exception. There is much more substance in my objection to the Title. I have a deep and, I think, justified loathing for the word "planning." Everybody makes plans. You do not go from this Chamber aimlessly into the Smoking Room. You have to plan your journey whether you go this way or that way, and you also plan your object when you get there. It might be a cup of tea or a talk about some important legislation or even a whisky and soda. Everybody makes a plan, unless you float about at the mercy of wind and tide like a cork. In the last 20 years there has been a move to give to the word "planning" a special connotation and to' my mind a specially dangerous one. Where it came from I do not know, but I suspect that the origin of this ultra-modern system of government to which we are all supposed to bow the knee may very well have come from abroad. A small group called "P.E.P." used to deluge us with a great deal of literature before the war. Now words such as "planning," or "arranging"


or "designing" which are of no force in themselves invite, the question, "Thinking, arranging or designing what?" Planning in itself might mean nothing. Stripped of all its verbiage, you see it exposed in all its stark nakedness as bureaucratic control at the centre. It is an extremely dangerous thing, and it behoves all of us to watch carefully lest it spread and become part of the general and established policy of this country. Town and country planning was first introduced in 1909, and we had the Act of 1932, but it was dangerous and wrong to include the name "Planning" in the Title of the 1932 Act, and in the Title of this Bill. It seems to imply that that general system of planning, that is to say, bureaucratic control, has now become an ancient and venerable part of the Constitution of this country. Therefore I ask the House to exercise very great caution when giving any fresh powers to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to order the daily lives and plan the whole of this country, and to remember that, while they are watching, there is a risk that innocent people of these islands may see with their own eyes the chains which are being forged with which to enslave them.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I would like to say that I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) that when the new houses in this country are built we shall have regard to their beauty. There is nothing so beautiful as the old houses and cottages built many generations ago and whose red and mellow bricks and tiles blend with the autumn foliage. They are, indeed, a part of the English countryside itself. But that is not what I got up to speak about. The Minister has assured us that he is transferring the existing powers, whatever they may be, from the Ministry of Works and Planning. But I cannot understand why the Minister does not go further than that and put the Ordnance Survey and Land Registry under the same roof as the Town Planning Department, It seems to me that he cannot plan the countryside in any way unless he has control of those two Departments. The economic planning of the country must be related to the geography of the regions concerned. Primary importance should be given to map making and plans which only the Ordnance Survey can produce and I understand that

such maps and plans are already in great arrear.
There is another point in regard to that. It would also be more economic. The Land Registry which is now under the control of the Lord Chancellor is largely bolstered up by the efforts of the Ordnance Survey. If they were under the same aegis I think it would lead to considerable economy. If they were amalgamated it would not only save money but it would save time. In trying to co-ordinate Departments it would save an enormous amount of time if these offices were under the control of the new Minister. The curious thing is that the Land Registry has provided a profit for the Crown. The foundation of this Registry has always rested upon the Ordnance Survey and if the Minister could envelop these two Departments he would not only be spending money, as he must do, but also earning a considerable amount by the efforts of the Ordnance Survey, which might offset to some extent the spending part of his Department.
As a result of the war, town planning and land registration have shown a considerable decline. Work is, however, still carried on by the Ordnance Survey for both these Departments, as a "repayment service." It is not difficult to adduce plenty of evidence that "repayment services" are not economical and certainly, in the case of town planning and land registration, the services rendered by the Ordnance Survey Office represent a substantial debt, and effectually prevent a close appraisal of the financing of town planning and land registration. A not inconsiderable part of the favourable balances shown by the Land Registry have been obtained at the expense of the Ordnance Survey. This has been made clear by the Davidson Report. Proper advertisement of the excellencies of the maps and plans, produced by the Ordnance survey, well known to us all, would result in a very substantial demand with a consequent increase in revenue.
If the amalgamation of the three Departments were approved by Parliament, the fees obtainable for the compulsory registration of ownership, plus the revenue from the sale of Government maps and plans, would probably balance the civil cost of the survey, now appearing as a debit of the Ministry of Agriculture, leaving only the cost of "planning" to be met by a Vote of Credit. A system of


"rights of occupancy" of publicly-owned land at suitable fees would logically result in a self-balancing Department, and in the passage of time, to a revenue-producing agency of ever-increasing value to the State.
We all know that a sine qua non of the new Ministry would be to set up registration, new plans and so on. I therefore trust the Minister will consider carefully the question of taking over the Ordnance Survey and Land Registry from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Lord Chancellor. We all know the working of the Ordnance Survey to be excellent. Whenever there are disputes about land we look at their maps and we are satisfied. There is not much time between the Second Reading of this Bill and the Committee stage, otherwise I should be inclined to move a new Clause suggesting that the Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry should be so transferred. I will, however, consider the matter. I am glad the Minister has given way on a point with regard to Clause 8, as far as the local authorities are concerned. The local authorities were immensely perturbed by suggestions about the creation of Commissioners. At the present time, they are suffering from a surfeit of Regional Commissioners and centralisation. Many of their powers have gone already. They feared the appointment of local commissioners under this Bill, and they felt perhaps that the commissioners the Minister might appoint would have extensive powers and would take away from them the planning powers they originally had. I am glad that matter has been cleared up, because the wide reference in the Bill to,
functions in relation to the use and development, of land
undoubtedly caused alarm to the local authorities. If Clause 8 had gone forward as it was originally framed, it might always have been said that, in spite of the assurances of the Minister, the Bill had laid down the principle of establishing commissioners to exercise wide functions in various parts of the country, and that whatever might be the intention of the Minister, there would still be the Act of Parliament. I think that the local authorities should not, indeed, be the complete controllers of post-war planning, but nevertheless, it is right that they should have a share in it. With regard to post-war planning, I feel that the

younger architects of the new age should also be consulted. In my own constituency of Southampton, a professor of town planning, who has been at the job for many years, has already made plans for the new town. Those plans are not, by any means accepted; but there is the danger of one man going from one town to another and setting his stamp and seal on every town, which would be very un-desirable. Let us remember the young architects who are coming along—perhaps they are now on active Service—let us remember that they represent the spirit of the age in which we live, and that architecture and building should always represent that spirit. I trust the Minister will bear in mind those few simple points.

Mr. Marshall: I welcome this Bill, because I think it is the proper thing. I was always a little suspicious of the marriage between works and planning at the Ministry of Works and Planning. It seemed to me that if what the Ministry did with its right hand was wrong, it could always condone it with its left hand. I do not think the functions of development and planning go too well together. Although my opinions may be different from the opinions held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), it appears to me that the best interests of physical planning will be served if we keep the two things entirely separate. I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick), who seems to have a very great dislike of expert planners. He had some very scathing things to say about them. There was, however, a curious contradiction in his speech. He began by bewailing the vandalism that had taken place over the countryside during the last 20 years, and then went on to make a scathing indictment of planners in particular and in general. But if the hon. and gallant Member does not want the countryside to be absolutely ruined beyond recovery, he must accept some kind of planning, ordering or restriction. Of course, the whole of it comes under the term "planning." It seems to me that the only thing the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not planned when he came into the House was his own speech.

Major Petherick: I did not make myself clear. What I was trying to convey was that ad hoc plans for certain things should


be examined on their merits, including what the Government are going to do under this Bill.

Mr. Marshall: I wish the Minister luck in his new venture. He has a very difficult thing to do. He has to wipe out the mistakes of pretty well 50 years, and it will not be an easy task. He will be in no need of advice. He has three great Reports to consider, all making very far-reaching recommendations. I am rather sorry that the Minister without Portfolio did not enlarge a little upon what the Minister's functions were to be. There is the great recommendation in the Barlow Report about the distribution of the industrial population, and this is linked up with the questions of housing and planning. You cannot escape it. If we try to deal with the question where an industrial population shall be induced to go, we inevitably come on to the question of planning, with the creation of new towns, or the development of old ones, and how they are to be laid out. I am sorry the Minister has not made a pronouncement that ribbon development is to be taken completely out of the hands of the Transport Ministry. It is an anomaly that it is dealt with by that Ministry. It is a matter for planning and should certainly be placed in the hands of the planning Minister. For the last 20 years housing estates have been developed on the borders of old towns in an ever expanding circle. Many town planners think that is wrong. I am not called upon to express an opinion on it now, but it appears to me that the Minister has to look at it very closely. He has to decide whether it is in the national interest that towns should be developed in this ever expanding circle, with the eating-up of green belts and the abolition of amenities of all descriptions, or whether he is going boldly to face the proposition how new satellite towns should be created. It is a decision of vital importance, and any planning Minister has to apply his mind to it quickly. I know he cannot decide the matter himself. It has to be decided in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, but it appears to me to be a matter of intimate concern to him where those houses are built. It may be that the matter of the great decision will rest with a committee of Ministers over which the Minister without Portfolio presides; I

believe that he called it a committee of national organisation. I am sorry that some pronouncements have not been made on these important matters.
This Bill and the whole question of planning are becoming urgent. We have been losing time. The powers were first given to the Minister of Health. We transferred them to the Minister of Works and Planning, and now they are being transferred to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. We have lost some precious and valuable time, and if the war came to an end very quickly, as I hope it will do, nothing but chaos and confusion would result as a consequence of the fact that we have not our plans ready for post-war reconstruction. It has been emphasised that this Bill is purely machinery. Here again, if I have a complaint, it is that we have not been told what that machinery is intended to do. I am not opposing the appointment of a Commission, but if it were to be used for certain purposes, I would have to make my protest. I do not want this great human function of planning to be placed in the hands of a Commission. I am sure that the local authorities will demand access to the Ministry. I agree with the Minister without Portfolio on that score. They will not want to be fobbed off by the chairman of a Commission. For many years they have been in the habit of going to Whitehall, getting in touch with the Minister or his chief secretary and discussing their problems with him. They will want to continue to do that. This is such an important matter and there is so much interest in it that it would not be proper for Parliament to delegate the functions of planning, and especially the relations with the local authorities, to a Commission.
There are certain things that a Commission could do admirably. The Minister made no comment on national parks. There is a great volume of public support for the establishment of national parks. I could go on at considerable length describing the beauties of Derbyshire, their existence in the heart of a great industrial community of 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people, and how precious they are to that community. And there are other areas in the country. This question is urgent, and if we allow a decision to be delayed until the war is ended, I am afraid that in this matter we shall be sunk. The


Commission is a proper instrument to administer the special planning arrangements that would be contingent upon the creation of national parks. Again, I notice that Lord Justice Scott in his Report suggested a Commission for the administration of the footpaths of the country. Here is valuable work upon which the Minister could embark. I am sure that he would give universal satisfaction if he appointed a Commission to schedule all the footpaths of the country and see that they were properly preserved and kept in repair by local authorities.
If it is for these things that the Minister without Portfolio feels that this Commission Clause is necessary, I should certainly agree. The local authorities have been anxious about Clause 8. They are also anxious that they should not have foisted upon them a regional organisation comparable to the Civil Defence regions. One might almost say that the word "regional" stinks in the nostrils of the local authorities. We all agree that some modification of local government boundaries is necessary for planning purposes. I have no time to develop that point, but I should like to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers the appropriate local planning authority. If planning is to be effective the country must be absolutely covered. The present set of local authorities, some of which cannot face the heavy claims of compensation and have margins which are not effectively covered, will never bring about a system of planning worthy of Britain and its people.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I want to thank the House for its very friendly reception of this Bill, and for allowing it an unopposed Second Reading. If the House gave the Bill a friendly reception, it also gave it, on the whole, an unenthusiastic reception. At that I express neither complaint nor surprise. After all, this Bill admittedly states nothing, except that a new Department is being set up. I think my hon. Friends on all sides of the House will realise that that, in itself, may be a great advantage if it enables us to begin in a hopeful way a task which will command, if it is done well, the enthusiasm of the whole House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) gave us a history of the various forms

that ideas on the building of a central planning authority have taken in the last two years or so. As a result of that, he said, he supported this Bill. With a great deal of his speech I was in complete agreement.
He is right in assuming that the new Minister will not be a sort of super-Minister, with powers to direct other Ministers, or other Departments. But that does not mean that there is not a well-defined field that demands the creation of a separate Ministry. In deciding certain questions of policy, obviously, other Ministers must be consulted, and for some purposes a Cabinet decision is clearly necessary. Again the Government's policy having been decided, there are a great many Ministries which themselves use and develop land and will be engaged in carrying it out. These Ministries are not being deprived of their functions, which again depend on Statute. That does not mean that there is not a function, both in the formulation and in the execution of policy, for which the new Ministry is required. The council of Ministers that will decide policy, in many cases, will surely need the advice of a Minister who can speak with authority and knowledge of the various factors governing both development and conservation in different parts of the country, including the particular part of the country immediately concerned. He will gather all the information that a good research division can give him. The research division has the task, among other things, of recording the classification of the land of this country.
I would remind the House of two facts which make work of this kind more important in this country than anywhere else in the world. The first is that this country is more crowded than any other. It will be noted that the Bill applies only to England and Wales, the most crowded community, certainly in Europe, and I think in the world. The second fact is that although we have the most beautiful scenery in the world, that scenery is of all beautiful scenery the most vulnerable. If we indulge in the fatal and wicked blunders in which we indulged in the generation between the two wars, we shall do irreparable damage. Therefore, a wise knowledge of the desirable use of land, and good planning are more necessary here than elsewhere. The new


Ministry will be able to give the Government the considered advice of a Minister who will have become expert in the existing and desirable use of the land of this country. If I take the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield as a whole, there was a good deal of it with which I agreed. I welcomed his support of the Bill. I do not think he need fear that the creation of the new Ministry means that the Government are under any illusion that all questions of policy can be decided by this Minister alone and that other Ministers can be over-ridden.
I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). He asked the Government's intentions regarding Clause 8. Let me tell him at once that the Government have no immediate intentions in regard to Clause 8. I cannot think it likely that any immediate use will be made of that Clause. We think it very useful because there are things in which a Commission may be a desirable form of advisory body to help the Minister, if the House approves an Affirmative Resolution. It is desirable that we should be able to use such machinery without the necessity of new legislation. National parks is one subject in which use might possibly be made of the Clause, as was mentioned in the speech of the horn Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the Minister deal with the other matter which was raised by my hon. Friend? If this is to be an advisory body, need it be mentioned at all? Cannot a Ministry appoint an advisory body in any case?

Mr. Strauss: In the limited time at my disposal I was going to say something about that speech. The Clause has a very limited use at present but, in the light of further legislation, it might have a greater use. A remark was made by the Minister without Portfolio from which the hon. Member for North Cumberland thought that a decision had been made by the Government to adopt the development-rights scheme of the Uthwatt Report. I would make it clear that no such decision has been come to, nor has there been any decision to the contrary. If any such decision is reached, further legislation will obviously be necessary.
The purpose of this Clause is to make the new Ministry which we are setting up more flexible than it would otherwise be. The hon. Member for North Cumberland made a remark which I have often made in a slightly different form, and with which I most profoundly agree. He said there was no need for a town to be a blot on the landscape. I think it was Dean Inge who pointed out how modern and absurd such a notion was. What would our ancestors of the 18th Century have thought if it had been suggested that a town must be a blot on the landscape? What would the people of Athens have thought? It is obviously desirable that we should cease to make our towns blots on the landscape. I agree entirely with the point that has been made in many quarters of the House that if we are to preserve the beauties of town and country we must preserve both; they hang together. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not mix them."] I quite agree; each has its characteristic virtue, and the distinction between the two must not be blurred. You will never save the countryside so long as people regard the town as a place from which to flee, and people will never be happy in the towns unless they have access to a glorious countryside. With good planning there is no reason why these two objects should not be satisfied.
The hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) was a little frightened by the language of Clause 1. He thought that the Minister might be unduly limited, I think by the words:
.…to be charged with the duty of securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales.…
I share his lack of enthusiasm for the words I have just recited; they are not exciting and they do not warm the blood. I think, however, that they are correct and right. We are not depriving other Ministries of their statutory duty to develop. I think that the words give as correct a statement as can be made, but if my hon. and learned Friend has any fear that these words mean that the new Ministry will be unduly cramped I advise him to await further legislation, in fact to wait and see. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) spoke of the importance of deciding the future of local government. Let me say on that point, that the reorganisation of local government


is a very complicated, and possibly controversial, thing. I believe that, the House will be unanimous in this: it does not want the cause of good planning postponed until we have decided on the whole future of local government in this country.
The hon. Baronet who is my colleague in the representation of Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) gave this Bill, in his own phrase, a reluctant acquiescence. He said that after the war the one thing would be to speed up development. That is my only quarrel with him; that will not be the only thing. It will be equally important to see that the development is good, and in that I believe this new Ministry has a vital part to play. In the course of an interruption of his speech I think it was suggested that local authorities knew very little about the design of houses and have produced some horrible houses. Perhaps they have in some places, but I want to express my own view that although there are some bad council houses there are also some good council houses, and anyone who ignores the destruction of the beauty and dignity of town and country caused not by municipal houses but by the houses of the speculative builders is ignoring what is perhaps as big a part of the question as any. The hon. Member pointed out rightly that the new Ministry would not be responsible for labour. That is quite correct. There is no intention to take that from the Ministry of Labour and National Service. The fact that this Ministry cannot do everything does not mean that it will not do anything.
To take another point, the hon. Baronet drew attention quite wisely and rightly to the very important question of materials. The question of materials will be one of importance both for the Ministry of Health and the new Ministry to take into consideration. But it is not illogical that materials should be controlled by a different Ministry and not by the new Ministry staffed by the important and highly specialised staff which will deal with town and country planning. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who speaks with considerable knowledge of these questions, as the Chairman of the town planning committee of the London County Council, welcomed the Bill and drew attention to some of the great problems that the Ministry will have to face. I do not think he will expect me to discuss those problems, and indeed it would not

be in Order if I attempted to do so. He is right in thinking that before this Ministry introduces any Bill amending the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, it intends to consult all the associations of local government authorities and the London County Council.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick), who made a characteristically amusing speech, objected to the name of the new Ministry. It is rather a long name, and I like short titles. I felt a sympathetic chord struck by his comment, but I was a little disappointed that he had himself no alternative name to suggest. Possibly on the Committee stage we may have the result of his thought on the matter. Then we shall be able to consider it on its merits. All I would say about the title is that it is admittedly a great nuisance in dealing with these very practical questions of physical planning that the planning of town and country should get mixed up with far vaguer and more remote questions of planning in general, about which there is at the present moment such an enormous amount of muddled thinking. But Town and Country Planning is a title with a fairly respectable history. Its meaning is well established and at the moment I am not aware of a better title, but I shall await with interest what my hon. Friend says on the Committee Stage. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas) wanted us at once to take over the Ordnance Survey department and the Land Registry. I do not want to say anything final on that topic or to predict the future, but I would remind the hon. Member that the Ordnance Survey department is at work for a great number of Departments, including the War Departments, and this would not be the time to take it over, even if it were otherwise desirable to do so. I am sorry that I have no time to deal with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside, but I indicated earlier in my speech with what sympathy I listened to several of his points.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—(Major Sir James Edmondson.)

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the pression Session to make provision in connection with the appointment of a Minister of Town and Country Planning; to provide for the transfer to that Minister of certain statutory functions; and to provide for the establishment of statutory Commissions for the purpose of exercising such functions in relation to the use and development of land in England and Wales as may hereafter be determined, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of an annual salary to the Minister not exceeding five thousand pounds and, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, of any other expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act including any other remuneration payable thereunder."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Henry Strauss.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS

Ordered,
That the Lords Message [19th January] communicating the Resolution—That it is

desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,—be now considered."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Sir James Edmondson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — SECRET SESSION

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

[The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]